Category Archives: Citizenship Behavior
With OCBs and Justice For All (IO Psychology)
Topic: Organizational Justice, Teams, Citizenship Behavior, Performance Appraisal
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (NOV 2012)
Article: Examining Retaliatory Responses to Justice Violations and Recovery
Attempts in Teams
Authors: J.S. Christian, M.S. Christian, A.S. Garza, A.P.J. Ellis
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
Should managers deal fairly with their employees? Well yes, of course, if they are concerned about being nice people or perhaps want to be told the correct location of the
holiday party. But what if managers are only concerned with bottom-line organizational effectiveness, profit, and ruthless getting-ahead in life? For these types, research by
Christian, et al. (2012) has shown that treating employees unfairly can lead to certain negative workplace outcomes.
The authors conducted an experiment with teams of simulated employees and found
that employees who are treated unfairly respond in two harmful ways. The first is that
these employees engage in fewer organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). This
refers to things that an employee might do to help out at work, but are not technically
considered part of the employee’s job. The second thing that employees do in
response to unfair treatment is give supervisors lower performance ratings.
But worse than that, these retaliatory behaviors may not be confined to the individuals
who were treated unfairly. The authors found that entire teams of employees banded
together and performed fewer OCBs as a response to a teammate’s unfair treatment.
When teammates perceive that someone is getting treated unfairly, they may have an
emotional response of moral outrage that moves them to supportive action.
Another interesting discovery is that these findings do not work equally for all people.
The authors describe “strategic core” employees, or employees whose work is
instrumental for team success, and who encounter more problems and a heavier
workload than the typical employee. When these employees are treated unfairly,
they respond with even fewer OCBs than ordinary employees would under similar
circumstances. Also, teams more drastically reduced their OCBs when a strategic core
employee was wronged.
This research shows the importance of treating employees fairly. But what can
managers do if they have already behaved unfairly toward an employee? Luckily
this study provides a solution. “Recovery” is an attempt to atone for past injustice
by correcting the injustice or showing genuine remorse. Recovery was successful
at raising levels of OCBs as well as improving subsequent performance ratings of
managers. In this situation, the wronged employee’s teammates also increased OCBs
and managerial performance ratings. In other words, don’t underestimate the power of
simply saying “I’m sorry”.
Christian, J.S., Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., & Ellis, A.P.J. (2012). Examining retaliatory
responses to justice violations and recovery attempts in teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(6), 1218-1232.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Proactive Performance Increases Customer Satisfaction (IO Psychology)
Topic: Culture, Self-Efficacy, Job Attitudes, Citizenship Behavior
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (MAY 2012)
Article: Doing the right thing without being told: Joint effects of initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee proactive customer service performance.
Authors: S. Raub, H. Liao
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
In the customer service division, men and women of the proactive service performance unit go above and beyond the call of duty. Their efforts often lead to increased customer satisfaction. These are their stories…
When customer service professionals follow established protocols and scripts during their interactions with customers, they are engaging in general service performance. Successfully meeting these standards is the mark of a good employee. Still, employees can do even better. One way to exceed expectations is to engage in proactive customer service performance. Employees who do this think about the future and have a long-term-oriented approach to anticipating and solving problems. They are also self-starters who do not wait to be told what to do. Instead, they take initiative to make decisions and do things that will help satisfy customers.
How can you get employees to engage in proactive customer service performance? Research by Raub and Liao (2012) has provided some clues. After conducting a large study involving dozens of service organizations, they found a positive relationship between initiative-climate and proactive customer service performance. What is initiative-climate? This is when an organization’s culture rewards and supports employees who show initiative. By doing so, they encourage employees to engage in behavior which is proactive.
The researchers also found that employee self-efficacy is positively related to proactive customer service performance. Why would this be? Employees with high self-efficacy, or the belief that they will be successful at work-related activities, are more likely to take a chance and be proactive. After all, they believe their actions have a high chance of leading to a successful outcome. Employees with low self-efficacy who do not believe they will be successful at work-related activities are less likely to be proactive. The researchers also found that the relationship between self-efficacy and proactive behavior is strengthened in an initiative-climate.
What happens when employees use proactive customer service performance? The authors found that this behavior is related to customer satisfaction, above and beyond general service performance. This means that it’s the extra, proactive behavior that is associated with the increase in customer satisfaction.
This study is important because it suggests a method for managers to increase customer satisfaction. It’s both the organization and the employee that make for a proactive environment. Organizations can create an initiative-climate that supports and rewards proactive behavior and recruit employees with high self-efficacy. Taking these steps can create an environment which is ripe for proactive service performance and customer satisfaction. And even if we are not in the service industry, don’t we all have customers whom we would like to satisfy?
Raub, S. & Liao, H. (2012). Doing the right thing without being told: Joint effects of
initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee proactive customer service
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 651-667.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Why LMX Works: Some Reasons Why High-Quality Relationships Are So Important
Topic: Citizenship Behavior, Leadership
Publication: Personnel Psychology (Autumn 2011)
Article: How Leader–Member Exchange Influences Effective Work Behaviors: Social Exchange and Internal–External Efficacy Perspectives
Authors: Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. M.
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory has been an influential leadership theory for many years. The central tenet of LMX theory is that managers and other individuals in leadership positions are likely to form relationships with their subordinates that differ in quality. A leader’s relationship with some subordinates may be close, personal, and open, while their relationship with other subordinates may be more formal, with less communication about non-work issues. LMX theory posits that these relational differences will lead to a variety of outcomes, including differences in performance and satisfaction among employees.
Although LMX theory has been influential for some time, there are still unanswered questions about the theory, such as what moderators or mediators might play a role in the LMX-performance relationship. Addressing this knowledge gap, a recent study by Fred Walumbwa and colleagues examined the potential impact of three mediators on the link between LMX and effective employee performance: commitment to the supervisor, self-efficacy, and means efficacy. Among their hypotheses, the authors believed that self- and means efficacy would be positively related to job performance, and that LMX would be directly related to both types of efficacy. The authors tested their hypotheses with a large sample of nurses. Results were supportive of the authors’ hypotheses, including the full mediation of the LMX-job performance relationship by supervisor commitment, self-efficacy, and means efficacy.
From a practical perspective, this study suggests that high LMX is associated with three important conditions – supervisor commitment, self-efficacy, and means efficacy — that contribute to high job performance by subordinates. It is also worth noting that the authors of the current article found that higher supervisor commitment was associated with higher levels of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), directed towards both the individual and the organization. As such, it appears that organizations have much to gain by encouraging (and facilitating) managers, supervisors, and other leaders to have positive relationships with their subordinates.
human resource management,organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
One Plank at a Time: Building the Bridge from OCBs to Performance
Topic: Job Performance, Citizenship Behavior
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology
Article: A Moderated Mediation Model of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Job Performance
Authors: Ozer, M.
Reviewed by: Neil Morelli
What do employers ultimately care about when considering employee behavior? Performance. Understanding organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) have been an important part of understanding job performance. OCBs are defined as actions employees take to go “above and beyond” their regular job to help meet the needs of coworkers and company.
In an effort to continue building the theoretical bridge between OCBs and performance, Ozer (2011) discovered that the quality of coworker relationships (called team member exchange; TMX) mediates the OCB to performance relationship, but only for OCBs directed toward individuals like providing encouragement, extra help, or advice. Because this relationship depends on the amount of leeway an employee has to engage in these relationships, Ozer also discovered that task autonomy moderated the OCB to TMX to performance relationships.
Help the Organization and…Help Yourself!!!
Topic: Citizenship Behavior, Interviewing, Selection
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (MAR 2011)
Article: Effects of organizational citizenship behaviors on selection decisions in employment interviews.
Authors: N. P. Podsakoff, S. W. Whiting, P. M. Podsakoff, & P. Mishra
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada
Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are behaviors an employee may engage in that have a positive impact on the work environment. Recent research has found that OCBs can have an important impact on productivity, turnover, and other outcomes that organizations value. In an effort to hire individuals who are likely to engage in OCBs, research has been devoted to finding ways to assess the tendency of job applicants to engage in these behaviors. However, little research has assessed how knowledge of an applicant’s tendency to engage (or not engage) in OCBs might impact selection decisions concerning that individual – until now.
Using an interview in a hypothetical hiring scenario, the current study found that individuals who demonstrated a tendency to engage in a variety of OCBs (helping behavior, constructively challenging the status quo, and verbally defending the organization) were given higher starting salary recommendations, higher ratings of competence, and overall higher evaluations than individuals who did not exhibit a tendency to engage in these OCBs.
Although our knowledge of how OCBs impact organizations is still growing, this study demonstrates that knowledge of applicant tendencies to engage in OCBs can have an impact on selection decisions. As we refine our knowledge of which OCBs are most useful for specific types of organizations, practitioners may use this knowledge to guide organizations towards selection systems that will effectively assess relevant OCBs.
human resource management,organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Dysfunctional employees? It could be attachment issues.
Topic: Stress, Turnover, Citizenship Behavior
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology
Article: Attachment at (Not to) Work: Applying Attachment Theory to Explain Individual Behavior in Organizations
Authors: D. A. Richards A.C.H. Schat
Reviewed By: Neil Morelli
People seem to inherently know that a job isn’t just about where you work, but also who you work with. Recent research has helped validate this feeling by studying how our behavior at work is partly determined by how attached, or unattached, we become to the people we work with. Specifically, attachment theory states that people are naturally motivated to associate with others in tough times, and the quantity and quality of this attachment is largely dependent on early life experiences. For example, those who are “securely attached” tend to exhibit strong self worth and a trust of others. At work, these attachment types help explain how we behave when presented with a challenging task or stressful moment.
Richards and Schat (2011) defined people who are considered to be “insecurely” attached as either being anxiously attached or avoidantly attached. Anxiously attached people are those who have a low view of themselves and are thus the “needy and clingy” type, whereas the avoidantly attached have a low view of others and are thus distant and mistrusting. Either type demonstrates an inability to deal with adversity or effectively garner support from others.
After determining that there is a clear distinction between these two poor attachment styles, it was discovered that anxious types are more likely to rely on others for support, less likely to contribute through “extra” effort, and more likely to want to leave when faced with challenges; when avoidant types are faced with challenges they are more likely to put on a strong face, regulate emotions, and look to themselves instead of others for support.
Role stressors and organizational citizenship behavior: Don’t stress those workers out
Topic: Citizenship Behavior, Stress
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JAN 2011)
Article: Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis
Authors: Erin Eatough, Chu-Hsiang Chang, Stephanie Miloslavic, and Russell Johnson
Reviewed By: Bobby Bullock
Job performance is not only evaluated by looking at an employee’s formal tasks but also through extra-role behaviors like organizational citizenship behavior (OCB, or behavior that goes beyond job requirements to support and benefit the workplace). However, while researchers have looked at a myriad of predictors of formal performance, much less attention has been awarded to predictors of OCB. To address this, Eatough, Chang, Miloslavic, and Johnson (2011) conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effects of occupational role stressors on OCB.
Role stressors, or factors that strain the behaviors and demands associated with a particular job, include role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload. Role ambiguity refers to unclear or vague performance expectations (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Role conflict refers to simultaneous contradictory expectations from coworkers and employers (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Role overload is when employees feel overloaded with tasks and responsibilities, or when too much is expected (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). The importance of examining the role stressor-OCB relationship is obvious when considering the importance of OCB. OCB is linked to performance, customer satisfaction, job satisfaction, organizational effectiveness, and profitability (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). In the meta-analysis, Eatough et al. (2011) found the following:
Ethical Leadership and OCBs?
Topic: Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Ethics, Gender
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (DEC 2010)
Article: Fostering good citizenship through ethical leadership: Exploring the moderating role of gender and organizational politics.
Authors: Michele Kacmar, Daniel Bachrach, Kenneth Harris, and Suzanne Zivnuska
Reviewed By: Bobby Bullock
Kacmar, Bachrach, Harris, and Zivnuska (2010) sought to expand on ethical leadership research by examining its relationship with organizational citizenship behavior. First, they examined the direct relationship between ethical leadership (honest, fair, and transparent leadership) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB- prosocial behavior at work such as helping fellow employees with difficult tasks). The results of their blanket study indicated that the presence of ethical leadership in an organization led to higher rates of OCB. This showed that when employees feel indebted to ethical leaders, they may seek to “repay” them with OCB. If it were that simple it would be great- make sure leaders act ethically and you could create a positive, prosocial work environment just like that! Things aren’t always so simple, as we find out in the latter parts of their study.
However straightforward the above findings are, they do not take into account various social and political factors that are present in most workplaces. Here’s where things get interesting. Employee gender roles and perceptions of organizational politics (POP- an employee’s perception of the political environment of their workplace, whereby high POP would indicate a politicized work environment where employees act selfishly and are motivated by self-interest) can influence the strength and direction of the above relationship. In terms of gender roles, social role theory (SRT) suggests that men engage in OCBs in part to increase their status and further their careers. In contrast, SRT would indicate that women engage in OCBs in part because of stronger social orientations and the desire to strengthen bonds with fellow coworkers.
When Helping Hurts: The Dark Side of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
Topic: Citizenship Behavior, Work-Life Balance
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior (AUG 2010)
Article: Citizenship under pressure: What’s a good soldier to do?
Author: M. C. Bolino, W. H. Turnley, J. B. Gilstrap, & M. M. Sauzo
Reviewed by: Sarah Teague
Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are defined as voluntary behaviors that facilitate organizational functioning but are not formally rewarded by the organization. The presence of these behaviors has consistently been shown to benefit both individual and organizational outcomes. In recent years, however, the accuracy of this definition has come into question as the degree to which employees engage in OCBs (or don’t) may actually be impacting the way they are evaluated by the organization. In the midst of the field’s infatuation with the impact of good deeds, the potentially dark side of OCBs has been largely neglected – a state of affairs that Bolino and colleagues intended to correct.
The authors of the current study suggest that increased expectations for employee involvement with the organization outside of work, along with the impact it may have on performance evaluations, has led to what they call citizenship pressure. Citizenship pressure refers to “a specific job demand in which an employee feels pressured to perform OCBs, and it is conceptualized as distinct from related topics such as role overload and OCB norms. The authors suggested that citizenship pressure would be positively related to OCBs but also to work-family conflict (i.e. work demands interfering with family), work-leisure conflict (i.e. work demands interfering with general personal time away from work), job stress, and intentions to quit.
Thank you! Why do these two words mean so much?
Topic: Citizenship Behavior, Work Environment
Publication: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Article: A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior (JUN 2010)
Authors: A. M. Grant, and F. Gino
Reviewed by: Sarah Teague
In recent years, employees’ jobs and job tasks have become increasingly interconnected, necessitating an increase in teams and groups in the workplace. This integration means that employees must interact with many different people at work on a regular basis and places a high value on interpersonal skills, even for non-service jobs. Modern organizations need employees who can function well in teams and work together to help achieve a common goal. As such, it is important for these organizations to understand how to promote prosocial (helping) amongst their employees.
One simple way to increase prosocial behavior is to express gratitude. That is, a simple “thank you” often does the trick … but WHY does this work? Grant and Gino (2010) proposed two competing explanations based on the dimensions of agency and communion. The agency perspective suggests that expressions of gratitude can enhance an individual’s feeling of competence (e.g.,), while communion predicts that gratitude increases feelings of social worth
The current article sought to determine whether expressions of gratitude make the helper feel more confident about his/her helping abilities or make him/her feel more valued.
