7/25/2019 Smith 1983

1/11

Journal of Applied Psychology1983, Vol 68, No 4, 653-66 3

Copyright 1983 by theAmerican Psychological Association, inc

Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents

C. Ann Smith, Dennis W. Organ, and Janet P. NearSchool of Business, Indiana University

It is argued here that a category of performance called citizenship behavior isimportant in organizations and not easily explained by the same incentives thatinduce entry, conformity to contractu al role prescriptions, or high produ ction Astudy of 422 employees and their supervisors from 58 departments of two bankssought to elaborate on the natu re and predictors of citizenship behavior Resultssuggest that citizenship behavior includes at least two separate dime nsions Altruism ,or helping specific persons, and G eneralized C om pliance, a m ore im personal formof conscientious citizenship Job satisfaction, as a meas ure of chronic m ood state,showed a direct predictive path to Altruism bu t not Generalized C omp liance Ru ralbac kgro und ha d direct effects on bo th dimen sions of citizenship behavior Th epredictive power of other variables (e g , leader su pportive ness as assessed inde -pendently by co-workers, personality measures) varied across the two dimensionsof citizenship behavior

Nearly two decades ago, Katz (1964) iden-tified three basic types of behavior essentialfor a functioning organiza tion (a) People mustbe induced to enter and remain within thesystem, (b) they must carry out specific rolerequirem ents in a dependable fashion; and (c)there must be innovative and spontaneous ac-tivity that goes beyond role prescriptions.Concerning this third category, Katz noted, An organization which depends solely uponits blu e-prin ts of prescrib ed behav ior is a veryfragile social sy ste m (p . 132). Every factory,office, or bureau depends daily on a myriadof acts of cooperation, helpfulness, suggestions,gestures of goodwill, altruism, and other in-stances of what we might call citizenship be-

havior.Citizenship behaviors comprise a dimension

of indiv idua l and group funct ioning thatRoethhsberger and Dickson (1964) seemed tohave in mind when they used the term co-operation A close reading of the co nclud ingchapters (22-26) in Managem ent and theWorker reveals that cooperat ion refers tosomething other than productivity. The latter

The data reported m this article are drawn from a doc-toral dissertation project conducted by the first author,who died on April 27, 1982 She was posthumouslyawarded the degree of Doctorate in Business Administra-tion m August, 1982

Requests for reprints should be addressed to DennisW Organ, School of Business, Indian a University, Bloom-mgton, Indiana 47405

was regarded as a function of the formal or-ganization (the authority structure, role spec-ifications, technology ) and the logic of factsCooperation, on the other hand, referred toacts that served more of a maintenance pur-pose, to ma intain internal equilibrium Co-operation thus included the day-to-day spon-taneous prosocial gestures of individual ac-com mo dation to the work needs of others (e.g.,co-workers, supervisor, clients in other de-partments), whereas productivity (or effi-ciency) was determined by the formal or eco-nomic structure of the organization. Roeth-hsberger and Dickson viewed cooperation asa product of informal organization and, sig-nificantly, the logic of sen tim ent. Th e latte r

was seen as influenced both by the quality ofwork experience and by previous social con-ditioning

Failure to recognize these subtle distinctionsmay account for the often-voiced criticism(e.g., Lawler & Porter, 1967) of the H aw tho rn eresearch and H um an Relations school asnaively proposing that satisfaction causes per-formance. To be sure, Roethlisberger andDickson implied that, at the aggregate level of

analysis (e g., the firm) and over the long run,efficiency and cooperation were interdepen-dent with each other But at the individuallevel of analysis, the emphasis on sentimentwas due to the presumed connection to co-operation, or citizenship behavior.

Substantively, citizenship behaviors are lm-

653

7/25/2019 Smith 1983

2/11

654 C SMITH, D ORGAN, AND J. NEAR

portan t because they lubricate the social ma-chinery of the organization. They provide theflexibility needed to work through many un-foreseen contingencies, they enable partici-pants to cope with the otherwise awesomecondition of interdependence on each other.Theoretically, they are of interest precisely be-cause they cannot, as Katz noted, be accountedfor by the same motivational bases as thosethat induce people to join, stay, and performwithin contractual, enforceable role prescrip-tions. Because citizenship behavior goes be-yond formal role requirements, it is not easilyenforced by the threat of sanctions. Further-more, much of what we call citizenship be-

havior is not easily governed by individual in -centive schemes, because such behavior is oftensubtle, difficult to measure, may contributemore to others' performance than one's own,and may even have the effect of sacrificingsome portion of one's immediate individualoutput To be sure, frequent acts of citizenshipbehavior will often be noted by organizationofficials (e.g., supervisors), and undoubtedlythis has some influence on subjective apprais-als of individual performance. But given themfrequency and unsystematic nature of mostappraisal systems, coupled with the fact thatmany supervisors have limited control overformal rewards, it seems unlikely that mostof the variance in good citizen behavior isexplained by the calculated anticipation thatthey will pay off in largesse for the person.Consider, by analogy, the larger social order.A society functions for better or for worse asa consequence of the frequency of many acts

of citizenship (i.e., spontaneous charitable actsto specific others, as well as more impersonalprosocial conduct) that are either not requiredby law or are essentially unenforceable by theusual incentives or sanctions Thus, it wouldseem to be a worthwhile exercise to inquireinto the antecedents of such behavior in or-ganizations.

Determ inants of Citizenship Behavior

Because much of what we call citizenshipbehavior has an altruistic character, it seemedworthwhile to explore the social psychologyliterature for determinants of altruism Theresults of a number of studies (e.g., Berkowitz& Connor, 1966; Isen, 1970; Isen & Levin,

1972; Levin Isen, 1975) can be summ arizedby concluding that mood state influences theprobability of prosocial gestures. Subjects mwhom a mood of positive affect had been in-ducedwhether by prior success on a chal-lenging task, the good fortune of receivingsome windfall, or simply quiet meditation onpast enjoyable experienceswere more likelyto behave altruistically Conversely, subjects inwhom a negative mood (e.g , of frustration,disappointment, anger) had been aroused wereless likely to show prosocial behavior. Thus,we might tentatively propose that job satis-faction, to the extent tha t it represents a char-acteristic or enduring positive mood state,

would account for some portion of citizenshipbehavior.Bateman and Organ (Note 1) found that

job satisfaction, as measured by the Job De-scriptive Index, did correlate with the extentof citizenship behavior as independently ratedby supervisors However, this study, which wascharacterized by a longitudinal, two-wavepanel design, found the association to be lim-ited to the concurrent correlations; there was

no significant difference in the cross-laggedcorrelations. Thus, the correlation did notreally pass the test of spuriousness. The authorssuggested that other environmental factors(e g., leader supportiveness) or individual at-tributes (e.g., traits, such as neuroticism) mightindependently affect both satisfaction and ci-tizenship behavior.

On a general level, three alternative models,as shown in Figure 1, invite scrutiny. The firstof these is consonant with a mood explanationof citizenship behavior. In this scheme, char-acteristic level of job satisfaction predicts ci-tizenship behavior. Environmental and indi-vidual difference variables affect citizenshipbehavior only indirectly via satisfaction. Thesecond model would accord a direct linkagefrom environm ental and personality factors tocitizenship behavior with concurrent, inde-pendent effects of those factors on satisfaction,thus rendering satisfaction and citizenship be-

havior correlated but functionally unrelated.The third model would account for citizenshipbehavior by a combination of direct effectsfrom environmental and personality variablesas well as indirect effects through satisfaction.

What environmental dimensions have directimplications for citizenship behavior and why?

7/25/2019 Smith 1983

3/11

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

a)W o r k p l a c eE n v i r o n m e n t

Sat isfact ion

Citizenship

- > Behavior (CB)

Personal i ty

b)W o r k p l a c eE n v i r o n m e n t

P e r s o n a l i t y

CB

c)W o r k p l a c eE n v i r o n m e n t

P e r s o n a l i t y

Figure 1 Competing models of prosystem maintenance behavior

Leader supportiveness may represent one suchdim ens ion, for two reason s First of a l l muchof supervisor consideration is, m itself, citi-zenship behavior (i.e., discretionary acts aim edat helping others) Th us , the supervisor servesto some extent as a model, and social psy-chological studies (e.g., as reviewed by K rebs ,1 9 7 0 and Berkowitz, 1970) strongly suggesttha t ma ny forms of prosocial behavior are in-fluenced by models. Models provide cues forwhat behavior is appro priate an d ma ke salientthe situational needs for prosocial gestures.Second, at some point leader supportivenessinitiates a pattern of exchange that is socialand noncontractual in character (Dansereau,

G raen , & Haga, 1975). Th e exchange becom essubjec t to broader norms of rec iproc i ty(Gouldner, 1960) or equity (Adams, 1965)Subo rdinates may choose citizenship behavioras a means of reciprocation to superiorsMoreover, they may choose citizenship be-havior, as opposed to increased productivity,

because variation in the latter is more con-strained by ability, work scheduling, or taskdesign. And such reciprocity may occur netof any effect of supportiveness on general jobsatisfaction, because the latter may be largelydetermined by factors (e.g., pay) beyond thesupervisor's control

A second environmental variable possiblydirectly affecting citizenship behavior is taskinterdependence. Specifically, task groupscharacterized by reciprocal interdependenceshould display m ore citizenship behavior th angroups m which independence or sequentialdependence is the rule. R eciprocal interd e-pendence, according to Thompson (1967), re-

quires frequent instances of spontaneous mu-tual adjustment in order to effect coo rdina tion.This requirement presumably fosters socialno rm s of coope ration, helping, and sensitivityto others' needs an d m akes salient a collectivesense of social responsibility (K rebs , 1970). Atthe same time, it tends to promote, ceteris

7/25/2019 Smith 1983

4/11

656 C SMITH, D ORGA N, AN D J NEAR

panbus, higher levels of group cohesion thanother task environments (Seashore, 1954);thus , because cohesion influences satisfaction,task interdependence is a potential source ofcommon variance in both mood and cit izen-ship behavior.

Citizenship behavior may represent just onemanifestation of a broader disposition towardprosocial behavior. Insofar as individual at-tributes are concerned, the social psychologyliterature on altruism (Krebs, 1970) suggeststhat extraversion is positively correlated withprosoc ia l behavior and tha t neuro t ic i sm(emotional instability) bears a negative rela-tionship with such behavior. Extraverts tend

to be more sensitive to their external envi-ronments, more sensitive to social stimuli, andmo re pron e to spontane ity in behavior Thosewho score high in neuroticism tend to be morepreoccupied with their own anxieties and p re-sumably do not have the emotional staminato concern themselves with others' problemsor general system requirements unrelated totheir own immediate needs.

M ore recent research attests to the existenceof a stable dim ensio n of individua l differencesconcerning belief in a just wo rld (Lerner &Miller, 1978). And there is evidence (Zuck-erman, 1975) that persons strongly endorsingthis belief system are more likely to exhibitprosocial behavior. Presumably, individualswho have such beliefs are confident that theywill, somehow and in good time, be rewardedfor any charitable or responsible conduct (i.e.,they accept the admonition from Ecclesiastes11:1, Cas t thy bread upo n the waters: for

thou shalt find it after many days ).Finally, certain dem ograph ic variables have,

with v arying degrees of consistency, been citedas predictors of altruism or other forms ofprosocial behavior. Ordinal birth position ap-pears to have some significance in this regard,with firstborn subjects found to show morealtruism (Krebs, 1970). A review by Gergen,Gergen, and M eter (1972) suggests educ ationallevel to be positively correlated with general

social responsibility. Th e significance of ur ba nversus rural origins with respect to altruismis more tenuous (Hansson, Slade, & Slade,1978). In a work setting, one might expect tosee more citizenship behavior displayed bythose of rural or small-town origins, if we ac-cept the hypothesis that such persons more

readily endorse a work ethic (Hulm & Blood,1968) such that citizenship beha vior is an endin itself.

In summary, this study attempted to assessthe extent to which good citizensh ip be-havior could be accoun ted for by charac teristicmood state and the extent to which certainenviron me ntal forces and individual differencevariables could independently predict citizen-ship behavior.

Method

Sample

Employees and their supervisors, representing 77 de-

partments of two banks of a large midwestern city, par-ticipated in the study During working hours, the subor-dinates in each department responded to a questionnairethat contained measures of general job satisfaction, per-sonality, leader suppo rtiveness, task interdepen dence, anditems asking for dem ograp hic inform ation Within eachdepartment, employees were randomly divided into twogroups (a) subjects, from whom only the satisfaction, per-sonality, and demographic data were used, and (b) de-scriptors, from whom only the responses concerning leadersupportiveness and task interdepen dence were used Theresponses of the descriptors within each department wereaveraged to provide indices of supervisor supportivenessand task interdependence as environmental factors, pro-cedurally independent of the subjects' responses to satis-faction and individual difference measures Supervisorsresponded to a separate questionnaire that asked them toassess each of their subordinates on items comprising ameasure of citizenship behavior The complete set of su-pervisory assessments of all subordinates was used onlyin preliminary analyses in order to assess psychometricproperties of the citizenship behavior measure Th eir as-sessments of the randomly selected subjects only were usedin the major analyses of relationships among variables

Work units with fewer than four subordinates wereeliminated so that the subject and descriptor groups ineach departm ent would contain at least two persons Inunits with an odd number of employees, the extra re-sponden t was assigned to the subject grou p Ultimately,usable data were obtained from 58 departments with 422respondents, of whom 220 served as subjects and 202 asdescriptors

Measures

Citizenship behavior was denn ed by the 16 items shownin Table 1 These items represent the final product ofsemistructured interviews with a number of managers

representing other organizations not included in the studyThese m anagers were asked to identify instances of helpful,but not absolutely required, job behavior A pool of suchitems was pilot tested w ith a group o f 67 full-time employ edmanagers enrolled in evening business classes in an urbancam pus setting Respo nden ts were asked to think of anemployee who worked or had worked for them and torate, on a 5-point scale, how characteristic each state men t

7/25/2019 Smith 1983

5/11

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 657

Table 1Principal-Factor Analysis With Varimax Rotation Citizenship B ehavior

ItemFactor 1Altruism

Factor 2GeneralizedCompliance

1 Helps others who have been absent2 Punctuality3 Volunteers for things that are not required4 Takes undeserved breaks *5 Orients new people even though it is not required6 Attendan ce at work is above the no rm7 Helps others who have heavy work loads8 Coasts towards the end of the day*9 Gives advance notice if unab le to come to work

10 Grea t deal of time spent with personal phone conv ersations*11 Doe s not take unnecessary time off work12 Assists supe rvisor with his or her work13 Makes innovative suggestions to improv e depa rtmen t14 Does not take extra breaks15 Attend functions not required but that help comp any image16 Does not spend time in idle conversation

EigenvaluePercent variance explainedCumulative percentage of variance explained

1123

J78211121

Ik33221207JO

Ik0639

J i5 40

38 638 6

24kl281104

.5931

.39

11

l ikl2508.6 3.3 415

2 1715.554 1

Note Factor loadings of 50 and above are underscoreda Reversed scoring

was of the employee The responses were subm itted tofactor analysis, with com mu nah ty estimates in the diagonalsand using orthogo nal vanm ax rotation Results suggestedtwo fairly interpretable and distinct factors, and the samefactor structure emerged from responses of the 422 personsin the present study

Factor 1 (see Table 1) appears to captu re behavior thatis directly and intentionally aimed at helping a specificperson in face-to-face situation s (e g , orienting new p eople,assisting someon e with a heavy work load) Th e elicitingstimulus, in other words, is someone needing aid, as mthe fashion of social psychological studies of altruism Th us,this dimension is referred to as Altruism

Factor 2, by contrast, pertains to a more impersonalform of conscientiousness that does not provide im med iateaid to any one specific person, but rather is indirectlyhelpful to others involved in the system Th e behavior(e g , punctuality, not wasting time) seems to representsomething akin to compliance with internalized normsdefining what a good employee ought to do This factorwill be referred to as Generalized C omp liance Only those

items loading above 50 on one factor and less than 50on the other were scored Coefficient a lpha reliability es-tim ates were 88 and 85 , respectively, for the two factors

For data analytic purposes in the major part of thisstudy, factor scores were estimated by simple summationof subjects' scores on the items loading on each factor Asshown below, this resulted in a corre lation of 45 (p 4 6

2 4

r\r2(,hi^4 6

r A' 2 4

Predicted Actual

Altruism model06

- 0 5.2 527

- 1 6.22

- . 1 8

05- 19

2731

- 2 026

- 2 1

Compliance model 0 6- 0 3

2118

- 2 0- 3 1- 1 9

- . 0 2- . 0 8

2118

- 2 1- 3 3- . 2 0

Discrepancy

- 0 1- 14

0204

- 0 404

- 0 3

.04- . 0 5

.0000

- 0 1- 0 2- . 0 1

differences. It may also be due in part to adifference in some task dimension other thaninterdependence (e.g., task complexity, ur-gency) or group cohesion.

Another point of equivocality arises fromthe use of separa te causal m odels for A ltruismand C om pliance, as if they were indepen dent,when in fact they were appreciably correlatedThus, a canonical correlation analysis wasperformed between the group of predictorvariables as one set and Altruism and Com-pliance as the other set. The first pair of ca-nonical variates correlated .44 (eigen value =.20). The cri terion van ate was dom inated byAltruism with a loading of .93 and a structuralcoefficient of .99. The dominant loadings onthe predicto r va nate were jo b satisfaction,education, and urban/rural origin The sec-ond pair of covanates correlated .33 (eigenvalue = .11) and was dominated by Compli-anc e on the criterion side (loading = 1.10,structu ral coefficient = .93) and by the he scaleand consideration on the predictor side, withurban/rural origin showing a borderline con-tribution. On the whole, then, the canonicalcorrelation analysis produced results consis-

tent with the causal models.A final note of caution concerns the boo t-strapp ing nat ure of generating the causalmodels. This may prod uce som ewhat eccentricresults in the regression that are unlikely toreplicate For exam ple, jo b satisfaction h ad

the highest zero-order correlation with Com-pliance of any of the potential predictor vari-ables yet did not figure in the causal modelderived from the regression. This could, ofcourse, occur if the variance shared betweenjob satisfaction and Compliance were spreadthinly over a number of other variables cor-re la t ing with Compliance. Nonetheless , i twould seem somewhat premature, given thispattern of data, to rule out some direct effectof satisfaction on Compliance

Discussion

The findings suggest that there are at least

two fairly distinct classes of citizenship be-havior and that they are best accounted for indifferent fashions

On e type of citizenship behavior, Altruism ,emerges as a class of helping behaviors aimeddirectly at specific persons The eliciting stimuliappear to be situational, that is, someone hasa problem, needs assistance, or requests a ser-vice It resembles very much the forms ofhelping behavior previously studied by socialpsychologists (e.g, Berkowitz, 1972) in ex-

perimental or nonwork contexts. Consistentwith man y of those studies, Altruism here wasstrongly influenced by a m o o d of positiveaffect, defined for thi s study by jo b satisfactionas a characteristic mood state (i.e., higher jobsatisfaction suggests a more frequent or ch ron icstate of good mood at work). Leader sup-portiveness, as an environmental factor, influ-enced Altruism only indirectly through its ef-fect on satisfaction. The relationship betweenleader supportiveness and satisfaction couldnot be dismissed as com mo n metho d or same-source variance, because the data came fromdifferent sourcesdescriptors and subjects.

It is more difficult to interpret the effects ofeducation and urban/rural origin. Their effectswere not mediated by satisfaction, indeed theywere not reliably correlated with satisfaction.Conceivably, years of edu catio n is a rou gh sur-rogate for social class background. Krebs's(1970) review cited studies that showed greater

f requency of a l t ru i sm , and presum ably agreater sense of social responsibility, amongmiddle-class than among working-class sub-jects Also, formal education might lead to agreater awareness of common fate amongme mb ers of a social unit or simply m ake pe o-

7/25/2019 Smith 1983

10/11

662 C SMITH, D ORGAN, AND J NEAR

pie more competent to render constructivehelp.

The effect of rural or small-town origin onAltruism might be interpreted as part of theProtestant Work Ethic syndrome (Merrens &Garrett, 1975), such that people who endorsethis ethic do what they believe a good workerought to do, regardless of mood or the like-lihood of immediate instrumental reward Onemight also invoke Milgram's (1970) notion of stimulus overload. This explanation wouldargue that people from urban settings learn tocope with overstimulation from the physicaland social environment by screening out manysocial stimuli, thus decreasing their sensitivity

to others' needs. Foa and Foa (1976) suggestedthat the anonymity and overload occasionedby city environments lead to a dependence onmore formalized and contractual transactions,with correspondingly less inclination towardnoncontractual or diffuse exchange based ontrust and personal needs.

Generalized Com pliance emerged as a classof citizenship behavior factonally distinct fromAltruism. Whereas Altruism appeared to rep-resent the help accorded to specific persons asthe situation prompted it, Generalized Com-pliance is a factor defined by a more imper-sonal sort of conscientiousness, more of a good soldier or good citizen syndrome ofdoing things that are right and proper butfor the sake of the system rather than for spe-cific persons Perhaps no t surprisingly, thepath-analytic model accounting for this be-havior differed substantially from the modelexplaining Altruism.

What was surprising was that the best directpredictor of Generalized Compliance was thesubject's score on the 4-item he scale. Thiscannot be dismissed as artifactual commonmethod variance, because the criterion ratingscame from the supervisor. More plausible isthe notion that he scale scores on the person-ality inventory reflect a need for social ap-proval. Thus, norms dictating GeneralizedCompliance may exert more hold on personswho seek approval by conducting themselvesm a socially desirable fashion.

Leader supportiveness also showed a directeffect on Generalized Compliance Unlike theAltruism model, the effect here was not me-diated by job satisfaction (satisfaction was un-correlated with the criterion when controlling

for leader supportiveness). This can not easilybe explained by the reversed causal sequence(i.e., that the supervisors were more consid-erate to those most compliant), because theleader supportiveness measure was obtainedfrom Descriptor rather than Subject responses.However, such a causal direction is somewhatplausible as a rival explanation for the super-visory unit as a whole, if a history of mutuallyagreeable work relationships had led to a highlevel of comphance throughout and the su-pervisor was highly supportive of the wholegroup. Otherwise, leader supportiveness mayfunction as a model for certain forms of ci-tizenship behavior or it may elicit such be-

havior as reciprocation in social exchange.To account for the effect of urban/rural or-

igin, we can offer no explanation beyond thatgiven for its effect on Altruism

One of the banks showed generally higherscores for leader supportiveness, and longertenured employees reported greater leadersupportiveness. We can offer no explanationof why such relationships existed, but they didgive rise to indirect effects on GeneralizedCompliance via leader supportiveness.

Task interdependence, extraversion, beliefin a just world, and birth order showed nopredictive value in direct or indirect effects oneither dimension of citizenship behavior. Theeffects of such variables may be attenuated inthe work setting (or the particular settingsstudied), or they may have effects on otheraspects of citizenship behavior not examinedin this study.

Referring back to Figure 1, the most tenablemodel at this point would seem to be the thirdone. In other words, satisfaction appears tohave some manner of direct effect on someforms of citizenship behavior. However, thiseffect is likely to be overestimated unless dueregard is given to other variables that may becorrelated with satisfaction and also exert theirown effects on citizenship behavior. The resultshere suggest, at the very least, that there arenonaffective determinants of altruism andgeneralized compliance.

The citizenship behavior m easure used wasrather simplistic, and the dimensionality ofcitizenship behavior based on the measure canscarcely be regarded as definitive. The studydid not address longitudinal relationships, sothe causal models used to interpret the findings

7/25/2019 Smith 1983

11/11

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 663

must be viewed as somewhat arbitrary, re-gardless of the goodness of fit. Nonetheless,the results show enough consistency with pre-vious social psychological studies of prosocialbehavior to warrant confidence in the generalconceptual and methodological approachestaken h ere. Th ere were unex pected results suf-ficiently interesting to suggest that citizenshipbehavior in the w ork setting is wo rthy of studyin its own right.

Reference Note

1 Bateman , T S , & Organ, D W Job satisfaction andthe good soldier Paper presented at the meeting of theAcademy of Management, New York, 1982

References

Ad am s, J S In equity in social exchange In L Berkowitz(Ed ), Advances in experimental social psvchology (Vol2) New York Academic Press, 1965

Berkowitz, L The self, selfishness, and altruism In JMacauley & L Berkowitz (Ed s), Altruism and helpingbehavior New York Academic Press, 1970

Berkowitz, L Social no rm s, feelings, and othe r factorsaffecting helping and altruism In L Berkowitz (Ed ),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 6) NewYork Academic Press, 1972

Berkowitz, L , & Connor, W H Success, failure, and socialresponsibility Journal oj Personality and Social Psy-chology, 1966, 4, 664-669

Dansereau, F D , Jr , Graen, G , & Haga, W J A verticaldyad linkage approach to leadership within formal or-ganiz ations A longitud inal investigation of the role-making process Organizational Behavior and H umanPerformance, 1975, 13 , 46-78

Eysenck, H U A short questionnaire for the measurem entof two dimensions of personality Journal of AppliedPsychology. 1958, 42 , 14-17

Foa, E B , Foa, U G Resource theory of social exchangeIn J W Thibau t, J T Spence, & R C Carson (Ed s),Contemporary topics in social psychology Momstown,N.J General Learnin g Press, 1976

Gergen, K J , Gergen, M M , & Meter, K Individualorientations to p rosocial behavior Journal of Social Is-sues, 1972, 28 , 105-130

Gouldner, A W The norm of reciprocity A prelimin arystatement American ociological Review. 1960.25, 161 -178

Hansson, R O , Slade, K M , & Slade, P S Urb an-ru raldifferences in responsiveness to an altruistic modelJournal of Social Psychology. 1978, 105, 99-105

Heise, D Prob lems in path analyses and causal inference

In E Borgatta (Ed), Sociological methodology SanFrancisco Jossey-Bass. 1969House, R J., & Dessler, G The path-goal theory of lead-

ership- Some post hoc and a priori tests In J G Hu nt

& L L Larson (Ed s), Contingency approaches to lead-ership Carbondale Southern Illinois University Press,1974

Huhn , C L . & Blood, M R Job enlargement, individualdifferences, and worker respon ses Psychological Bulletin,1968, 69 , 41-55

Isen, A M Success, failure, attentio n, and reaction toothers Th e warm glow of success Journal ofPersonalityand Social Psychology. 1970, 75, 2 9 4 - 3 0 1 .

Isen, A M , & Levin, P F Effect of feeling good on helpin g.Cookies and kindness Journal o f Personality and SocialPsvchology, 1972, 21 , 384-388

Katz, D Th e motivational basis of organizational behaviorBehavioral Science, 1964 ,9 , 131-133 .

Krebs, D L Altruisman examination of the conceptand a review of the literature Psychological Bulletin,1970, 73 , 258-302

Lawler, E E , III, & Porter, L W Th e effect of p erforman ce

on job satisfaction Industrial Relations, 1967, 7, 20-28Lerner, M J , & Miller, D T Just world research and th e

attribution process Looking back and ahead Psycho-logical Bulletin, 1978,55, 1030-1051

Levin, P R , & Isen, A M Fu rther studies on the effectof feeling good on helping Sociometry, 1975,38, 1 4 1 -147

Merrens, M R.. & Gar rett, J B Th e Protestan t EthicScale as a predictor of repetitive work performanceJournal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60 , 125-127 .

Milgram, S The experience of living in cities Science,1970, 16 7 1461-1468

Miller, D T Altruism and th rea t to a belief in a jus t worldJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1977, 13 ,113-124

Roethhsberger, F J , & Dickson, W J Management andthe worker New York Wiley Science Edition s, 1964 .

Rub in, Z , & Peplau, L A Belief in a just world andreactions to anothe r's lot A study of particip ants in thenational draft lottery Journal o f Social Issues, 1973,29 , 73-93

Scott, W E , Jr The development of semantic differentialscales as measures of m o ra le Personal Psychology,1967, 20 , 179-198

Seashore, S E Group cohesiveness in the industrial w ork

group Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press, 1954atogdill, R M Man ual for job description and job ex-

pectation questionnaire Columb us, Ohio Program forResearch in Leadership and Organization, College ofAdm inistrative Science, Th e Ohio S tate University, 1965

Thom pson, J D Organizations in action New YorkMcGraw-Hill, 1967

Van de Ven, A H., Delbecq, A L , & Koemg, R Deter-minants of coordination modes within organizationsAmerican Sociological Review, 1976, 41 , 322 -338 .

Zuck erman , M Belief m a just world and altruistic be-havior Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1975, 31 , 972-97'6

Received October 12, 1982Revision received May 16, 49 83