Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.

Although one of the main reasons for the interest in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) is the potential consequences of these behaviors, no study has been reported that summarizes the research regarding the relationships between OCBs and their outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide a meta-analytic examination of the relationships between OCBs and a variety of individual-and organizational-level outcomes. Results, based on 168 independent samples (N ϭ 51,235 individuals), indicated that OCBs are related to a number of individual-level outcomes, including managerial ratings of employee performance, reward allocation decisions, and a variety of withdrawal-related criteria (e.g., employee turnover intentions, actual turnover, and absenteeism). In addition, OCBs were found to be related (k ϭ 38; N ϭ 3,611 units) to a number of organizational-level outcomes (e.g., productivity, efficiency, reduced costs, customer satisfaction, and unit-level turnover). Of interest, somewhat stronger relationships were observed between OCBs and unit-level performance measures in longitudinal studies than in cross-sectional studies, providing some evidence that OCBs are causally related to these criteria. The implications of these findings for both researchers and practitioners are discussed. Keywords: organizational citizenship behaviors, contextual performance, meta-analysis, customer satisfaction, withdrawal If the number of articles that have been published over the past quarter century is any indication, it would appear that organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are firmly embedded in the fabric of the fields of organizational behavior and industrialorganizational psychology. For example, since Organ and his colleagues (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ (1988) originally defined organizational citizenship behavior as "individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization" (p. 4). However, more recently, he modified this definition to say that OCB is "performance that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place" (Organ, 1997, p. 95). The advantage of this revised definition is that it (a) maintains the distinction that has empirically been shown to exist between task performance and OCBs (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Of course, if one assumes that OCBs have an effect on organizational performance, it makes sense to identify those variables that increase these behaviors in organizational settings. That is probably why most of the research in this domain has focused on the potential antecedents of OCBs, such as personality traits (cf. There are several good reasons for the growing interest in the effects that OCBs have on these types of outcomes. First, if OCBs do have positive relationships with organizational effectiveness criteria, then it is important for us to quantify these effects so that we have a more complete picture of the potential impact that OCBs have on the "bottom line" of the organization. Second, it is important to examine the relationships between OCBs and organizational effectiveness criteria because, despite the fact that OCBs are assumed to be positively related to unit or organizational effectiveness, there is some evidence that this assumption is not always true. For example, in their study of 116 insurance agencies, Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide a quantitative summary of the empirical relationships between OCBs and individual and organizational outcomes. As a first step in this process, we review several theoretical explanations for why we expect OCBs to influence both individual and organizational outcomes. Following this, we conduct a meta-analytic review of the studies examining these relationships. Finally, we discuss the implications of these results and identify several avenues for future research. This study makes several contributions to the literature. First, although there have been a substantial number of meta-analyses that have reported the relationships between OCBs and some of their antecedents (Borman et al., 2001; Background and Hypothese

On the limitations of using situational judgement tests to measure interpersonal skills: The moderating influence of employee anger

Many authors have suggested that situational judgment tests (SJTs) are useful tools for assessing applicants because SJT items can be written to assess a number of job-related knowledges, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs). However, SJTs may not be appropriate for measuring certain KSAOs for some applicants. We posit that using SJTs to measure interpersonal skills may lead to invalid inferences about applicants with higher levels of angry hostility (AH), and thus, AH should moderate the relation between interpersonally oriented SJTs and job performance. Three studies, using samples of healthcare workers (n = 225), police officers (n = 54), and medical doctors (n = 92), provided support for hypotheses in that that relations between SJT scores and performance criteria were significantly weaker among employees higher in AH compared to those lower in AH. In addition, none of the other facets of neuroticism tested (self-consciousness, anxiety, depression, immoderation, or vulnerability to stress) consistently moderated SJT validity, providing support for the uniqueness of AH. Implications for practice, and for future research studying the relations between interpersonal skills as measured by SJTs and job performance, are discussed

Construct Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research: Integrating New and Existing Techniques

Despite the fact that validating the measures of constructs is critical to building cumulative knowledge in MIS and the behavioral sciences, the process of scale development and validation continues to be a challenging activity. Undoubtedly, part of the problem is that many of the scale development procedures advocated in the literature are limited by the fact that they (1)　fail to adequately discuss how to develop appropriate conceptual definitions of the focal construct, (2)　often fail to properly specify the measurement model that relates the latent construct to its indicators, and (3)　underutilize techniques that provide evidence that the set of items used to represent the focal construct actually measures what it purports to measure. Therefore, the purpose of the present paper is to integrate new and existing techniques into a comprehensive set of recommendations that can be used to give researchers in MIS and the behavioral sciences a framework for developing valid measures. First, we briefly elaborate upon some of the limitations of current scale development practices. Following this, we discuss each of the steps in the scale development process while paying particular attention to the differences that are required when one is attempting to develop scales for constructs with formative indicators as opposed to constructs with reflective indicators. Finally, we discuss several things that should be done after the initial development of a scale to examine its generalizability and to enhance its usefulness

Evaluate goodness

of fit of the measurement model Assess validity of the set of indicators at the construct level Constructs with Reflective Indicators Examine significance of the χ 2 (p>.10), CFI (>.95), RMSEA (<.06), and SRMR (<.08). Conduct a simultaneous test of the vanishing tetrads implied by the model (Bollen and Ting 2000). For first-order constructs (Figure 3, Panel A): Examine whether the average variance extracted (AVE) for the set of indicators is greater than.50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). For second-order constructs (Figure 3, Panel C): Assess the validity of the set of sub-dimensions using Edwards ’ (2001) multivariate coefficient of determination (R 2 m). Alternatively, the average varianc

Dispelling misconceptions and providing guidelines for leader reward and punishment behavior

One unfortunate consequence of the focus on "charismatic," "transformational," and "visionary" leader behaviors during the past few decades has been the tendency to diminish the importance that transactional leadership behaviors have on leadership effectiveness. We say that this is unfortunate because recent research has shown that transactional leadership, in the form of contingent reward and punishment behaviors, can have substantial effects on a variety of important employee attitudes, perceptions, and measures of job performance. Therefore, in this article we discuss some possible reasons why transactional leadership has been relegated to a lesser role than transformational leadership, summarize the research that indicates the importance of leader contingent reward and punishment behavior to leadership effectiveness, and identify some of the mechanisms that these forms of leadership behavior work through to influence employee attitudes and behaviors. Following this, we address ten misconceptions managers often have regarding the administration of rewards and punishments, and provide some recommendations about how leaders can improve their effectiveness in administering recognition and discipline in organizational settings.Leadership Reward Recognition Punishment Discipline Misconceptions about leadership

Running head: CONSTRUCT VALIDATION IN RESEARCH

Polynomial variable transformations have become increasingly popular in organizational studies to help deal with a variety of statistical issues. Indeed, a review of over 4,000 articles published in management journals indicates that almost 10% of these articles used at least some form of power transformation in the analysis. Specifically, over 14% of the articles published in Strategic Management Journal during the 2000s reported a transformation of at least one variable. Unfortunately, the first-order variable and its higher-order polynomials are usually highly correlated, resulting in a wide range of multicollinearity problems. However, the majority of the studies analyzed articles fell short of ideal in addressing this issue. A review of the top journals publishing organizational research indicates that several critical issues were ignored during the implementation of these transformations. Specifically, researchers did not typically: (1) provide an explanation for their decision to use a specific transformation (e.g., z-score, Legendre, polynomial); (2) did not test the effects of their transformation procedures on the focal variable, and (3) report the results of their analyses both before and after the transformation to assess the effects of their correction procedure. Therefore, the purpose of this manuscript is threefold. First, we provide a review of 324 articles published in the organizational sciences that describe current practices in research using variable transformations. Second, we conduct several Monte Carlo simulations examining the effects of the four types of transformations that were most commonly reported in the literature. Finally, the results of these simulations are used to help develop a set of recommended best practices for researchers. We conclude with a discussion of implications for editors, reviewers, and researchers in the organizational studies field

One (Rating) From Many (Observations): Factors Affecting The Individual Assessment Of Voice Behavior In Groups

This article reports an investigation into how individuals form perceptions of overall voice behavior in group contexts. More specifically, the authors examine the effect of the proportion of group members exhibiting voice behavior in the group, the frequency of voice events in the group, and the measurement item referent (group vs. individual) on an individual\u27s ratings of group voice behavior. In addition, the authors examine the effect that measurement item referent has on the magnitude of the relationship observed between an individual\u27s ratings of group voice behavior and perceptions of group performance. Consistent with hypotheses, the results from 1 field study (N = 220) and 1 laboratory experiment (N = 366) indicate that: (a) When group referents were used, raters relied on the frequency of voice events (and not the proportion of group members exhibiting voice) to inform their ratings of voice behavior, whereas the opposite was true when individual-referent items were used, and (b) the magnitude of the relationship between observers\u27 ratings of group voice behavior and their perceptions of group performance was higher when raters used group-referent, as opposed to an individual-referent, items. The authors discuss the implications of their findings for scholars interested in studying behavioral phenomena occurring in teams, groups, and work units in organizational behavior research

Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.

Although one of the main reasons for the interest in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) is the potential consequences of these behaviors, no study has been reported that summarizes the research regarding the relationships between OCBs and their outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide a meta-analytic examination of the relationships between OCBs and a variety of individual-and organizational-level outcomes. Results, based on 168 independent samples (N ϭ 51,235 individuals), indicated that OCBs are related to a number of individual-level outcomes, including managerial ratings of employee performance, reward allocation decisions, and a variety of withdrawal-related criteria (e.g., employee turnover intentions, actual turnover, and absenteeism). In addition, OCBs were found to be related (k ϭ 38; N ϭ 3,611 units) to a number of organizational-level outcomes (e.g., productivity, efficiency, reduced costs, customer satisfaction, and unit-level turnover). Of interest, somewhat stronger relationships were observed between OCBs and unit-level performance measures in longitudinal studies than in cross-sectional studies, providing some evidence that OCBs are causally related to these criteria. The implications of these findings for both researchers and practitioners are discussed. Keywords: organizational citizenship behaviors, contextual performance, meta-analysis, customer satisfaction, withdrawal If the number of articles that have been published over the past quarter century is any indication, it would appear that organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are firmly embedded in the fabric of the fields of organizational behavior and industrialorganizational psychology. For example, since Organ and his colleagues (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ (1988) originally defined organizational citizenship behavior as "individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization" (p. 4). However, more recently, he modified this definition to say that OCB is "performance that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place" (Organ, 1997, p. 95). The advantage of this revised definition is that it (a) maintains the distinction that has empirically been shown to exist between task performance and OCBs (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Of course, if one assumes that OCBs have an effect on organizational performance, it makes sense to identify those variables that increase these behaviors in organizational settings. That is probably why most of the research in this domain has focused on the potential antecedents of OCBs, such as personality traits (cf. There are several good reasons for the growing interest in the effects that OCBs have on these types of outcomes. First, if OCBs do have positive relationships with organizational effectiveness criteria, then it is important for us to quantify these effects so that we have a more complete picture of the potential impact that OCBs have on the "bottom line" of the organization. Second, it is important to examine the relationships between OCBs and organizational effectiveness criteria because, despite the fact that OCBs are assumed to be positively related to unit or organizational effectiveness, there is some evidence that this assumption is not always true. For example, in their study of 116 insurance agencies, Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide a quantitative summary of the empirical relationships between OCBs and individual and organizational outcomes. As a first step in this process, we review several theoretical explanations for why we expect OCBs to influence both individual and organizational outcomes. Following this, we conduct a meta-analytic review of the studies examining these relationships. Finally, we discuss the implications of these results and identify several avenues for future research. This study makes several contributions to the literature. First, although there have been a substantial number of meta-analyses that have reported the relationships between OCBs and some of their antecedents (Borman et al., 2001; Background and Hypothese

Unplugging or staying connected? Examining the nature, antecedents, and consequences of profiles of daily recovery experiences

Research on workplace recovery recognizes that employees must restore lost resources after work to improve their subsequent well-being and performance. Scholars have noted that employees’ recovery experiences—psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery, and control—vary day-to-day, yielding crucial implications for the aforementioned outcomes. Yet, despite these important theoretical and empirical insights, researchers to date have not comprehensively examined multiple daily recovery experiences in conjunction, instead studying the unique effects of only 1 or 2 experiences in isolation. Using a person-centric view of employees’ recovery experiences, the current study examines whether profiles of daily recovery experiences occur for employees, and how these profiles (a) vary in membership from one day to the next, (b) are differentiated by daily job demands and resources experienced at work, and (c) predict employee well-being and discretionary behaviors during the subsequent workday. Using experience sampling data from 207 full-time employees, results revealed 5 profiles of daily recovery experiences that exhibited distinct relations with within-person antecedents and outcomes. As such, the current investigation represents a necessary first step in understanding how employees jointly experience recovery in relation to their daily work and well-being. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)Center for Leadership Ethics, Eller College of Management; Eller College of Management Small Research GrantsThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]