535638

research-article2014
JLOXXX10.1177/1548051814535638Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesLemmon and Wayne

Article
Journal of Leadership &

Underlying Motives of Organizational

Organizational Studies
1­–20
© The Authors 2014
Citizenship Behavior: Comparing Egoistic Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

and Altruistic Motivations DOI: 10.1177/1548051814535638

jlo.sagepub.com

Grace Lemmon1 and Sandy J. Wayne2

Abstract
This study examined organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) from a motivational perspective by investigating two
underlying motives of employee OCB: egoism and altruism. Drawing on Batson’s theory of motivation, employee felt
obligation and altruistic concern were explored as underlying motives for citizenship behavior directed toward the
organization (OCBO) and supervisor (OCBS). A model of the antecedents and outcomes of these motives was tested
with a sample of 164 employee–supervisor dyads. Interestingly, in a structural equation model representing meditational
effects, altruistic concern but not felt obligation predicted OCBO, while felt obligation but not altruistic concern predicted
OCBS. Altruistic concern fully mediated the relation between person–organization fit and OCBO and between perceived
organizational support and OCBO. Felt obligation partially mediated the relationship between leader–member exchange
and OCBS. Implications of the results for practice and future OCB motive research are discussed.

Keywords
citizenship, leadership style, employee attitudes, followership

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is defined by
Organ (1988) as behavior that goes beyond job require-
ments and is not directly or formally rewarded. It is behav-
ior that in some way benefits the organization or its
members, and accordingly has been referred to as prosocial
organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), extra-
role behavior (Wright, George, Farnsworth, & McMahan,
1993), and contextual behavior (Organ & Ryan, 1995).
OCB has become a prominent topic of research primarily
because studies have consistently found the construct to be
positively related to employee productivity and organiza-
tional performance (Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002;
Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo,
1996). Given the impact of OCB on critical organizational
outcomes, it is important to understand its predictors.
Determining why individuals engage in citizenship
behavior has been an interest of OCB researchers, as well
as scholars examining similar behaviors such as helping,
sharing, and volunteering (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986).
One approach to understanding why individuals engage in
OCB has focused on underlying motives. For example,
studies have examined self-interest and prosocial motiva-
tions (concern for others) as a precursor of OCB (e.g.,
McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004).
Yet, prior research has not concurrently explored whether
the motives for OCB vary depending on the beneficiary of
the citizenship behavior (e.g., organization vs. supervisor)
and how characteristics of the relationship (e.g., quality of
relationship with the organization vs. with the supervisor)
may be related to different motives.
Integrating Batson’s (1991) theory of prosocial behavior
into OCB research, the first aim of this article is to expand
Batson’s premise that prosocial behavior can be driven by
egoistic as well as altruistic motives (see also Batson &
Shaw, 1991). Specifically, we examine (a) felt obligation
and (b) altruistic concern as underlying motives of two
types of citizenship behavior: helping behavior that benefits
the organization (OCBO) and helping behavior that benefits
the supervisor (OCBS). Felt obligation as a motive for
engaging in OCB indicates that the helping behavior is
driven by a desire to fulfill an obligation and, thus, is pri-
marily based on self-serving motives. In contrast, altruistic
concern as a motive for OCB is indicative of helping behav-
ior that is premised on interpersonal feelings of caring or
helping another.
The second aim of this article is to identify antecedents
of these two motives for OCB by drawing on two theoretic
frameworks: social exchange and identification. Both
1
DePaul University, Chicago, IL, USA
2
University of Illinois at Chicago, IL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Grace Lemmon, Department of Management, Driehaus College of
Business, DePaul University, 1 E. Jackson, Suite 7000, Chicago, IL 60604,
USA.
Email: gracelemmon@gmail.com

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014

2 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 
frameworks suggest that helping behavior is predicated on
identifying the stimuli for feelings toward the target, that is,
the motives. These motives serve as a mechanism for link-
ing attributes of the employee–supervisor and employee–
organization relationship to helping behavior. This focus
enables the study to contribute specific recommendations
on how to alter the motivational states that are conducive to
OCB, within the bounds of social exchange and identifica-
tion theories. Furthermore, this focus enables a test of
Batson’s theory insofar as both motives are considered in a
single model, expanding our understanding of whether and
how multiple motivations for OCB operate.
Articulation of antecedents of motives for OCB began
with the premise that an employee has two primary, yet dis-
tinct relationships at work: the relationship with his or her
supervisor and the relationship with his or her organization
(Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Wayne, Shore, &
Liden, 1997) and thus elicits OCB toward the supervisor
(OCBS) and organization (OCBO) separately (Lavelle et
al., 2009; Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007). As such, ante-
cedents to the motivational states of felt obligation and
altruism must take into account constructs specific to each
referent; this is consistent with a target-similarity frame-
work of work relationships (Lavelle et al., 2007).
In terms of predictors of felt obligation, research on
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) suggests that the
employee’s quality of exchange with his/her dyadic part-
ner is related to the need to reciprocate because of feelings
of obligation, which in turn may be fulfilled through citi-
zenship behavior. Specific to the target-similarity approach
to identifying antecedents (Lavelle et al., 2007), the qual-
ity of exchange between the employee and organization
(perceived organizational support) and between the
employee and supervisor (leader–member exchange) are
examined as predictors of employee felt obligation toward
each dyadic partner, with felt obligation motivating target-
consistent helping behavior. Not only do exchange rela-
tionships focus on giving and receiving of resources or
reciprocity, they also represent the socioemotional rela-
tionship between the two parties. Thus, perceived organi-
zational support (POS) and leader–member exchange
(LMX) also are examined as predictors of altruistic con-
cern for the organization and supervisor, respectively,
with altruistic concern prompting target-consistent help-
ing behavior. Additional antecedents of altruistic concern
are drawn from the literature on role identity, including
self–other identification (Batson, Turk, Shaw, & Klein,
1995; Lerner & Miendl, 1981) and perspective taking
(Batson, Eklund, Chermok, Hoyt, & Ortiz, 2007; Stotland,
1969), which emphasize similarity in values. Specifically,
we examine the employee’s similarity in values with the
organization (person–organization fit) and similarity with
the supervisor (supervisor–subordinate similarity) as pre-
dictors of the employee’s altruistic concern toward each
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
party. Finally, research on impression management indi-
cates that employees may engage in OCB to be seen by
others in a positive light (Bolino, 1999). We consequently
include impression management as a control variable in
our model. A model of the proposed relationships is
depicted in Figure 1.
Testing a model of altruistic concern and felt obligation
as motives for engaging in OCBO and OCBS is important
for several reasons. First, this study enables us to better
understand why individuals engage in OCBO and OCBS.
Identifying the motivational processes underlying OCBO
and OCBS is critical to identifying antecedents of each
form of helping behavior. For example, if felt obligation is
the primary basis for OCBS, then research might focus on
what creates employee indebtedness or feelings of obliga-
tion within the employee–supervisor dyad. Altruistic con-
cern as an underlying motive of OCBS would suggest a
different set of antecedents such as those that create
mutual attraction and liking between the parties. Thus, by
examining the concurrent importance of altruistic concern
and felt obligation in relation to OCB, we gain insight into
the motives related to the behavior, which has implica-
tions for how to increase OCBO and OCBS in organiza-
tions. Second, this study explores the distinct means by
which target-specific OCB may be increased. There may
be occasions where an organization is in greater need of
OCBS, perhaps during a time of high work volume
wherein a supervisor is in need of substantial assistance.
By using social exchange and identity theoretic framing to
identify antecedents of motives, our model would identify
means for increasing OCBS, based on the antecedents that
are significantly related to motives driving OCBS. Third,
our model proposes that altruistic motivation for OCB
does not preclude self-interest as a motive. For example, a
core tenant of Batson’s theory of motives for prosocial
behavior specifies that prosocial behavior may be concur-
rently motivated by altruism and egoism. Prior research
has tended to focus on altruistic or egoistic motives for
OCB but not both in the same model. Developing a model
of concurrent egoistic and altruistic motives for OCB will
more accurately represent the spectrum of motives for
OCB and the co-occurring importance of these motives for
two types of OCB. This perspective is of particular impor-
tance as we see burgeoning evidence of diminishing
returns of OCB (Bergeron, Shipp, Rosen, & Furst, 2013),
insofar as the effort required to engage in OCB under-
mines or depletes energy available for in-role duties and
responsibilities. These new studies on the costs of OCB
would be informed by understanding what may drive
employees to engage in OCB at the expense of their in-
role performance. In sum, this article develops a multifoci
model of OCB that focuses on predictors of felt obligation
and altruistic concern as motives related to helping
behavior.
Lemmon and Wayne 3

H5a Felt obligation toward

H1a, H5a
the organization
Perceived Organizational
organizational citizenship behavior -
support organization
H8a
Altruistic concern for the
H3, H6, H8a
organization
Person-
organization fit H6
Controlvariable:
Impression
management

Felt obligation toward

H5b
the supervisor H2, H5b

Leader- Organizational
member citizenship behavior -
exchange supervisor
H8b
Altruistic concern for the H4, H7, H8b
Supervisor- supervisor
subordinate
similarity H7

Figure 1.  Hypothesized model.

Theory and Hypotheses
Batson’s Theory of Motives for Prosocial
Behavior
Given the positive consequences of OCB (MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, & Ahearne, 1997; Podsakoff, Ahearne, &
MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994) research
aimed at uncovering its motives, and predictors of those
motives, is important. Batson’s (1991) theory on egoistic
and altruistic motivation for prosocial behavior provides a
framework for identifying categories of motives for engag-
ing in OCB. Batson (1991) described two underlying driv-
ers of helping behavior: (a) egoistic motivation, defined by
felt obligation (the need to be rewarded by another or avoid
feelings of indebtedness to another), and (b) altruistic moti-
vation, defined by the need to help another because of feel-
ings of identification. Although his original theory mainly
focused on helping behavior, it can be extended to explain
motives for OCB, as OCB is largely defined by its discre-
tionary, helping behavior (Organ, 1988).
According to Batson (1987), egoistic motivation is based
on (a) the desire to reduce one’s own unpleasant emotional
arousal that rises from perceiving another in need (e.g., pre-
venting feelings of guilt when you see someone in need and
do not help) or (b) the perception that exchanging with
another will result in a reward. The common theme is that
egoistic motivation is driven by felt obligation to exchange
with another person for self-serving reasons. The key to dif-
ferentiating egoistic motivation from altruistic motivation is
not the actual form of rewards (be it extrinsic or intrinsic),
but whether the primary reason for engaging in the behavior
is self-serving. For instance, Batson (1987, 1991) also
pointed out that intrinsically motivated behavior may have
self-serving goals, such as the desire to reduce feelings of
guilt aroused from perceiving someone in need. More recent
research on OCB has also indicated that this helping behav-
ior loses its utility when one is not optimistic about the like-
lihood of continued exchange stemming from it, a decidedly
self-serving motive for continued OCB (Munyon,
Hochwarter, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2010). In sum, one reason
individuals may engage in OCB within the context of an
exchange (with an organization or supervisor) is to alleviate
feelings of felt obligation with one’s exchange partner or to
motivate an exchange partner to exchange with oneself in
the future.
Hypothesis 1: Felt obligation toward the organization is
positively related to OCBO.
Hypothesis 2: Felt obligation toward the supervisor is
positively related to OCBS.
What, then, is altruistic motivation? Historically,
Auguste Comte first coined the term altruism. Comte
(1875) did not deny that altruism could have self-serving

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014

4 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 
goals. He called the impulse to seek self-benefit and self-
gratification egoism. But Comte did believe that behaviors
could be stimulated by an unselfish desire to “live for oth-
ers” (p. 556)—that is, concern for others, without regard to
what an individual may personally gain from the exchange.
Altruism is largely invoked by altruistic concern for another
person, such as valuing the welfare of another person (e.g.,
Batson, 1998; Batson et al., 1995; Batson et al., 2007;
Davis, 1983a, 1983b, 1994), or identifying with them
(Lerner & Meindl, 1981).
Altruistic concern is stimulated by empathy, or a “more
other-oriented emotional response elicited by and congru-
ent with the perceived welfare of someone else,” and it
includes feeling sympathetic, compassionate, warm, soft-
hearted, and tender (Batson, 1987, p. 93). One component
of altruism includes empathy, which is when an individual
tries to put himself or herself in the shoes of the other in
order to understand their perspective and behave in ways
that complement that perspective (Batson et al., 2007; De
Dreu & Nauta, 2009). Research on altruistic concern also
emphasizes that other self-serving benefits that may result
from such prosocial behavior are not the ultimate goal (e.g.,
feeling benevolent or self-satisfied); instead, they are only
incidental consequences of helping. Improving the well-
being of the beneficiary of the altruistic behavior is an end
unto itself. Importantly, Batson’s view of altruism has
received empirical support. There is evidence demonstrat-
ing that altruistic concern leads to helping behavior (Batson,
Cowles, & Coke, 1979; Coke, Batson, & McDavis, 1978).
For example, in one study participants learned indirectly
about a graduate student’s need for research participants by
listening to a bogus taped radio broadcast, and then were
given a written appeal for help (Coke et al., 1978). Results
showed a strong positive association between the degree of
self-reported altruistic concern, stimulated by feelings of
empathy, and actual helping behavior. Comparatively, in an
organizational setting, an employee’s empathy and altruis-
tic feelings toward his/her organization or supervisor may
lead to OCB directed at that organization or individual,
respectively.
There is one additional issue concerning the role of altru-
ism that needs to be addressed: Do employees feel altruistic
emotions toward the organization? Since altruism has been
examined primarily toward an individual, one may question
whether employees develop altruistic feelings for non-liv-
ing entity. According to Levinson (1965), people tend to
ascribe traits or qualities to organizations through the pro-
cess of personification. An example of the personification
process can be found in the construct of perceived organiza-
tional support, developed by Eisenberger, Huntington,
Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) and expanded on in a wealth of
other studies (e.g., Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003; Erdogan
& Enders, 2007; Wayne et al., 1997). Eisenberger et al.
(1986) stated that individuals form an “anthropomorphic
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
ascription of dispositional traits to the organization” (p.
500), and further proposed that individuals’ commitment to
their organization was a function of their perceptions of the
organization’s commitment to them. Such a belief is defined
as employees’ perceptions of the extent to which the orga-
nization is committed to them, values their contribution,
and is concerned with their needs and well-being. Since
individuals personify the organization and base their loyalty
on their organization’s commitment to them, it is reason-
able to assume that individuals can take the organization’s
perspective and develop altruistic feelings toward their
organization. Moreover, literature on person–organization
fit (Kristof, 1996) contends that employees are able to
develop an extensive understanding of an organization’s
values and goals. Thus, employees appear capable of emot-
ing about the organization, including feeling sympathetic to
its needs and values and compassionate in that employees
can care about the organization’s future.
Hypothesis 3: Altruistic concern for the organization is
positively related to OCBO.
Hypothesis 4: Altruistic concern for the supervisor is
positively related to OCBS.
Although egoistic and altruistic motivation give us
insights into why individuals engage in OCB, they are often
thought to be independent explanations for OCB (for an
exception, see Rioux & Penner, 2001). In accordance with
Batson’s (1991) theory on altruistic and egoistic motiva-
tion, this study examines felt obligation and altruistic con-
cern as motives for OCB concurrently. Furthermore,
although there are other operationalizations of both altruis-
tic and egoistic motivation, we focus on felt obligation
because of the emphasis on exchange theory in the OCB
literature. Following the suggestion of LePine, Erez, and
Johnson (2002), we consider OCB at the aggregate level,
but distinguish OCB by the targets or beneficiaries of the
behavior (e.g., Karriker & Williams, 2009; Lavelle et al.,
2007). The next section describes specific predictors of felt
obligation and altruistic concern and the two foci of OCB
(OCBO and OCBS).
Antecedents of Felt Obligation and Altruistic
Concern as Motives for OCB
Identification of antecedents of the relationship between
felt obligation and engaging in OCB is largely informed by
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Smith, Organ, & Near,
1983). Social exchange theory proposes that individuals are
motivated to engage in an exchange when they need to
repay another for some previously received benefit or when
they want the recipient to feel indebted so as to return the
favor or maintain the exchange in the future (Blau, 1964).
Lemmon and Wayne 5
That is, an exchange between an employee and another
party, such as an organization or supervisor, implies feel-
ings of felt obligation to the exchange partner (Batson,
1998). Thus, we identify feelings of obligation as a key
stimulus between the presence of social exchange relation-
ship qualities and attendant behaviors (Blau, 1964; Karriker
& Williams, 2009). As such, drawing on the social exchange
literature, we can identify how feelings of felt obligation
come about and motivate reciprocal behavior (Blau, 1964).
In an organizational context, employees may engage in
OCB to build and maintain relationships with their exchange
partner (organization or supervisor) via fulfillment of recip-
rocal obligations (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2005;
Hui, Lee, & Rousseau, 2004; Karriker & Williams, 2009).
That is, employees may feel obligated (i.e., felt obligation)
to engage in OCB as a result of the organization or supervi-
sor’s fulfillment of its obligations to the employee
(Eisenberger et al., 1986; Wayne et al., 1997). For example,
when employees perceive that the organization has fulfilled
its obligation to them, they feel obligated to return such an
obligation by sharing personal resources with the organiza-
tion (e.g., discretionary time, effort, caring; Eisenberger et
al., 1986; Gouldner, 1960). Moreover, research on psycho-
logical contracts, or the set of implicit reciprocal obliga-
tions within the employee–organization exchange, suggests
that the reason employees engage in OCB is because their
employer has fulfilled expected obligations and has treated
them fairly. Therefore, employees feel a sense of obligation
to their employer to reciprocate (Hu & Liden, 2012;
McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Moorman, 1991; Nauta, De
Dreu, & Van Der Vaart, 2002; Robinson, Kraatz, &
Rousseau, 1994; Settoon & Mossholder, 2002; Shore,
Barksdale, & Shore, 1995; Wayne et al., 1997). Other stud-
ies show that fulfillment of the psychological contract is
positively related to employee OCB (Robinson et al., 1994),
and violation of the contract results in negative responses
from employees such as feelings of lowered obligations
(Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000), reduction of OCB
(Robinson & Morrison, 1995), decrease in trust, and turn-
over (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Zhao, Wayne,
Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007). In sum, these studies demon-
strate that one potential motive of employees when engag-
ing in OCB is to fulfill or create implicit obligations between
themselves and their organization or supervisor. In this
way, felt obligation represents a key mediator between a
higher quality exchange relationship and helping behavior.
Although often used as a theoretic rationale for the link
between relationship quality and OCB, here we explicitly
test this premise by measuring an employee’s felt
obligation.
Two defining relationships for an employee are the rela-
tionship with his or her supervisor and the relationship with
his or her organization (Cropanzano, Chrobot-Mason,
Rupp, & Prehar, 2004). Specifically, support for examining
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
individuals and organizations as beneficiaries or targets of
felt obligation can be found in the literatures on perceived
organizational support and leader–member exchange. POS
describes employees’ general beliefs about the extent to
which their organization values their contribution, cares
about their well-being, and actively helps the employee
when needed (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Similarly, being
sufficiently supported and valued by the organization can
stimulate a sense of obligation toward the organization
(Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades,
2001; Karriker & Williams, 2009). With regard to the
employee–supervisor relationship, the quality of the rela-
tionship between an employee and supervisor may influ-
ence feelings of felt obligation (Wayne et al., 1997).
Individuals with a high-quality exchange are likely to expe-
rience stronger feelings of felt obligation because higher
quality exchanges imply that the resources exchanged
between a supervisor and employee occur with greater fre-
quency, and the resources exchanged are more personal
(Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Rupp
& Cropanzano, 2002). In comparing POS and LMX, studies
demonstrate that they are two distinct constructs (Kottke &
Sharafinski, 1988; Wayne et al., 1997) and they have differ-
ent antecedents and outcomes (Wayne et al., 1997).
Therefore, it is likely that when employees feel a sense of
obligation toward their employer because of obligations
induced by POS, they will feel compelled to exchange with
the organization through OCB directed toward the organi-
zation. On the other hand, if their obligations are toward
their supervisor, as represented by higher LMX, they may
engage in behaviors to benefit their supervisor (Karriker &
Williams, 2009; Lavelle et al., 2007).
Hypothesis 5a: Felt obligation toward the organization
mediates the relationship between POS and OCBO.
Hypothesis 5b: Felt obligation toward the supervisor
mediates the relationship between LMX and OCBS.
In addition to felt obligation, altruism has been identi-
fied as a potential motive for OCB (Batson, 1991).
Altruistic motivation to engage in OCB is described as
empathically motivated, or driven by intentions to benefit
others. Indeed, research on altruistic motivation suggests
that prosocial motives and empathy motivates helping (De
Dreu & Nauta, 2009; Grant & Mayer, 2009). Here it is sug-
gested that the focal employee strongly identifies with the
other and seeks to understand the perspective of the other
person (Lerner & Meindl, 1981). From an organization-
referent standpoint, employees may seek to understand an
organization’s overriding goals and values, such as “being
green” or “giving back to the community.” After employ-
ees understand these goals, they establish their role in help-
ing the organization reach its particular goals or values. As
such, as Kamdar, McAllister, and Turban (2007) describe,
6 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 
employees who strongly identify with their organizational
role integrate OCB into their “employee” role definitions
and enact OCB because their connection to their organiza-
tion induces feelings of altruistic motivation. Thus,
employees may engage in OCB because of prosocial con-
cerns, such as to advance the organization’s mission
(Callero, 1985; Finkelstein & Penner, 2004). Moreover,
according to role identity theory, employees who identify
with the organization have personal concern for the organi-
zation because they care strongly about their relationship
partner, and thus engage in OCB in order to enhance the
welfare of the organization (Pearce & Gregersen, 1991).
Thus, OCB can be self-sacrificial and engaged in for the
benefit of others, which is indicative of altruistic motiva-
tion (Batson, 1987). This further suggests that altruistic
concern is a key explanatory mechanism linking identifica-
tion with another and helping behavior. What, then, are
specific antecedents of altruistic motivation?
Examination of antecedents of altruistic motivation as a
basis for OCB is limited, and typically focuses on volun-
teerism (e.g., Finkelstein & Penner, 2004) or reciprocal
altruism, wherein displayed altruistic OCB is learned by the
other party, and reciprocated (Salamon & Deutsch, 2006).
However, like felt obligation, altruistic concern is a largely
unmeasured explanation for these linkages, and as such, we
explicitly measure and include this construct in our model.
When it comes to the question of what evokes altruistic
concern, there are two major areas of research. Some
researchers argue that self–other merging is the key factor
to stimulating altruistic feelings (e.g., Lerner & Meindl,
1981), whereas other researchers contend that valuing the
other person’s welfare may play a part in evoking altruistic
concern (Hoffman, 1981). The following sections discuss
these two lines of research.
Self–Other Merging View.  Lerner and Meindl (1981) claim
that when people identify with the person in need, and
when they are psychologically indistinguishable from the
other person, they may experience what the other person is
experiencing. This self–other merging hypothesis has
received some empirical support from studies on relation-
ship closeness and altruistic concern (Cialdini, Brown,
Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997). In the Cialdini et al.
(1997) study, researchers differentiated relationship close-
ness by portraying the other person as a stranger, an
acquaintance, a close friend, or a family member to the
participants. Results showed that relationship closeness
was positively related to altruistic concern, indicating that
the closer the relationship the participants had with the
person in need, the stronger the altruistic concern they
developed. Researchers concluded that when people felt
altruistic concern, it was “due to the perspective taking
that attends relationship closeness and that leads to self-
other overlap” (p. 491). Applying this logic of self–other
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
merging in a relationship, Person–Organization (P-O) fit
is hypothesized as a predictor of altruistic concern.
P-O fit is broadly defined as “the compatibility between
individuals and organizations” (Kristof, 1996, p. 3). This
definition assumes such compatibility under the condition
that the two entities share similar fundamental characteris-
tics (Kristof, 1996). Some researchers operationalize such
supplementary P-O fit by measuring the congruence
between individual and organizational values (e.g.,
Chatman, 1991). Schneider’s (1987) attraction–selection–
attrition framework suggests that people are attracted to and
selected by organizations whose goals are similar to their
own, or by organizations that could enable them to attain
their individual goals. For instance, researchers find that at
the individual level, people who share congruent value sys-
tems tend to behave in similar ways, and the communica-
tion and coordination between them becomes easier
(Meglino & Ravlin, 1998). Thus, when employees share the
organization’s goals and values, they can think from the
organization’s standpoint and are thus more altruistically
concerned about the well-being of the organization.
Specifically, employees experiencing higher P-O fit will
hold similar values and goals to that of their organization,
making their sense of self increasingly indistinguishable
(psychologically) from the organization (Aron & Aron,
2000). They come to believe that their own actions should
embody the goals and values held in common with the orga-
nization. In essence, this indicates that employees have a
deep, extensive understanding of the organization’s values
and goals because they have become one and the same with
employees’ personal values and goals (Aron & Aron, 2000).
This enables employees to be better able to take the per-
spective of the organization, or demonstrate altruistic con-
cern for it. This altruistic concern will, in turn, lead to
citizenship behavior directed at the organization.
Hypothesis 6: Altruistic concern for the organization
mediates the relation between P-O fit and OCBO.
Valuing the Welfare of Another Person. Another group of
researchers claims that valuing another person’s welfare
may play an important role in evoking altruistic concern
(e.g., Hoffman, 1981). Batson et al. (1995) conducted a
study that suggested that altruistic concern arose when the
other person’s welfare was valued. They contended that
altruistic concern was not an instrumental means to self-
benefits. Their study found that similarity between the par-
ticipants and the person in need led to a significant increase
in participants valuing the person in need’s welfare, which,
in turn, led to increased altruistic concern for that person.
Other studies have also looked at similarity between the
observer and the target to see whether such similarity might
induce altruistic feelings. In a review, Eisenberg and Miller
(1987) identified seven studies that looked at the effect of
Lemmon and Wayne 7
observer–target similarity on altruistic concern. They con-
cluded that, in general, similarity was positively associated
with helping behavior. Specifically, results suggested that
manipulation of race similarity was not an effective way to
induce altruistic concern. Rather, similarity in interest and
preferences was significantly related to helping behavior.
Later studies involving counselor–patient dyads provided
further evidence for the relation between shared similarity
and altruistic concern. For example, a study found that
counselors who shared similar world views with their cli-
ents were perceived to show more altruistic concern during
therapy (Kim, Ng, & Ahn, 2005). Thus, in an organizational
setting, when employees perceive themselves as being sim-
ilar to their supervisor, it is likely that they will care about
the welfare of their supervisor and develop altruistic con-
cern for him/her. Therefore, employee perceptions of shared
similarity with the supervisor will be related to altruistic
feelings toward the supervisor, which, in turn, will be posi-
tively related to OCB directed at the supervisor.
Hypothesis 7: Altruistic concern for the supervisor
mediates the relation between perceived supervisor–sub-
ordinate similarity and OCBS.
LMX and POS both involve a relationship, either
between the supervisor and employee (LMX) or the organi-
zation and employee (POS). An employee with higher
LMX identifies with the leader because she has a close rela-
tionship, and will thus feel more concerned for the leader’s
welfare (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Lerner & Meindl, 1981).
Similarly, an employee experiencing high POS will identify
with the organization because the organization shows con-
cern for the employee, and actively aids the employee when
the employee requires assistance (Liden & Maslyn, 1998).
Implicit in the idea of identifying with one’s supervisor or
organization is a concern for the welfare of the supervisor
or organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Moreover, high
LMX and POS are related to higher quality exchanges with
one’s supervisor and organization, respectively, that are
characterized by higher commitment, trust, liking, and posi-
tive affect (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Wayne et al., 1997).
These characteristics all imply concern for the welfare of
the other party in the relationship because of the breadth
and depth of the relationship. Thus, LMX and POS are
associated not only with feelings of felt obligation but also
with altruistic concern for the supervisor and organization,
respectively. Batson’s (1998) review of altruism and proso-
cial behavior provides the rationale behind the relationship
between POS, altruistic concern for the organization, and
helping behavior, as well as between LMX, altruistic con-
cern for the supervisor, and helping behavior. The author
states that individuals are altruistically aroused when they
feel the need to share vicariously or share resources that
they have, without the implication that repayment must
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
occur. Individuals may provide resources to another simply
because they care about the other’s welfare and want to
share the resources. Resources can be tangible (such as
money) or, as in the case of OCB, intangible (time, effort;
Salamon & Deutsch, 2006). It follows that when an indi-
vidual has a resource that she can share, she will want to
share that resource with those she cares about or values
(Batson, 1998). Similarly, higher POS and LMX prompt
altruistic concern, and the behavioral manifestation of that
concern is the sharing of resources. OCBO and OCBS,
respectively, are ways in which an employee can share
resources.
Hypothesis 8a: Altruistic concern for the organization
mediates the relation between POS and OCBO.
Hypothesis 8b: Altruistic concern for the supervisor
mediates the relation between LMX and OCBS.
Method
Sample and Data Collection
A large real estate company that owns, develops, and man-
ages malls and other properties in the United States was
recruited to participate in this study. Employees and their
supervisors completed online surveys. An e-mail from the
company’s Vice President of Human Resources introduced
the researchers and the study to the participants. Email invi-
tations to participate in the study were sent to 499 employ-
ees and 222 supervisors. Employees and their supervisors
worked at company headquarters and were responsible for
managing and providing support services for the company’s
various properties. They worked in a broad range of func-
tional areas including human resources, accounting, finance,
and marketing. Employees responded to questions that
measure perceived organization support, person–organiza-
tion fit, leader–member exchange, supervisor–subordinate
similarity, felt obligation toward the company and supervi-
sor, altruistic concern for the company and for their super-
visor, and impression management. Ratings of employee
citizenship behaviors were provided by their immediate
supervisors. In total, 399 employees completed the online
employee survey, and 200 supervisors completed the online
supervisor survey, resulting in response rates of 79.96%
and 90%, respectively. In total, there were 164 matched
dyads (effective response rate: 33%), which was the sample
used to test the model. The majority of employees were
White/Caucasian (76.2%); 11.0% were African American,
4.9% were Hispanic, and 3.7% were Asian; 4.2% did not
report their race. In terms of gender, 59.8% were female and
40.2% were male. In terms of education, 54.3% of the
employees had a bachelor’s degree as their highest degree,
16.5% had a master’s or higher degree. The remainder had
a high school degree or did not report their level of
8 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 
education (29.2%). The average organizational tenure for
the employee sample was 4.8 years.
Measures
Unless indicated, all responses were on a 7-point scale,
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
Perceived Organizational Support.  The 9-item shortened ver-
sion of Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) measure of POS was
used to measure POS. This shortened version has been used
in previous research (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMas-
tro, 1990; Wayne et al., 1997). An example item is “The
organization values my contribution to its well-being.” The
reliability was .92.
P-O Fit. The 7-item value congruence measure in Chao,
O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, and Gardner’s (1994) social-
ization scale was used to measure P-O fit. This scale’s items
are similar to more traditional measures of P-O fit. For
instance, example items include “I would be a good exam-
ple of an employee who represents my organization’s val-
ues” and “I believe that I fit in well with my organization.”
Cable and DeRue’s (2002) P-O fit scale uses similar items,
such as “The things that I value in life are very similar to
what [COMPANY] values.” The reliability was .87.
Leader–Member Exchange.  The 12-item scale developed by
Liden and Maslyn (1998) was used to measure LMX. An
example item is “My supervisor is the kind of person one
would like to have as a friend.” The reliability was .94.
Supervisor–Subordinate Similarity. Shared similarity was
measured with three items developed by Turban and Jones
(1988). One example item is “My supervisor and I are simi-
lar in terms of our outlook, perspective, and values.” The
reliability was .93.
Felt Obligation. The measure for felt obligation was from
Eisenberger et al. (2001). There were a total of 7 items; an
example item for felt obligation toward the organization is
“I feel a personal obligation to do whatever I can to help the
organization achieve its goals.” For felt obligation toward
the supervisor, the same items were modified by replacing
the word “organization” with “supervisor.” The reliabilities
for felt obligation toward the organization and felt obliga-
tion toward the supervisor were .86 and .86, respectively.
Altruistic Concern for the Organization.  Altruistic concern for
the organization was measured with the 10-item scale
developed by Rioux and Penner (2001). An example item is
“I care what happens to the company.” This measure of
altruistic concern was subsequently used in a study by Fin-
kelstein and Penner (2004). The reliability was .86.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
Altruistic Concern for the Supervisor. Altruistic concern for
the supervisor was measured with 7 items from Davis’s
(1994) measure, which captures the extent to which an
employee feels compassion or empathy toward his or her
supervisor. An example item is “I sometimes try to under-
stand my supervisor better by imagining how things look
from his/her perspective.” The reliability was .74.
OCB.  OCBO was measured with the 14-item scale devel-
oped by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter
(1990), which assesses the conscientiousness, sportsman-
ship, and civic virtue dimensions of OCB. On a scale from
1 = never to 7 = always, this measure asks supervisors to
rate the extent to which their subordinate, for example,
“attends functions that are not required, but help the com-
pany image” and “obeys the rules and regulations even
when no one is watching.” The reliability of OCBO was
.87. OCB directed toward the supervisor was measured
with the 5-item OCBS scaled used by Rupp and Cropanz-
ano (2002) and based on L. J. Williams and Anderson
(1991). This measure asks supervisors to rate the extent to
which their subordinate “Helps you when you have a heavy
workload” and “Assists you with your work (when not
asked).” The reliability of the OCBS measure was .87.
Impression Management.  Impression management (IM) was
used as a control variable because in past studies (e.g.,
Bolino, 1999; Rioux & Penner, 2001) IM explained vari-
ance in OCB above and beyond prosocial values (i.e., altru-
ism) and organizational commitment. For example, research
has shown that OCB is associated with favorable perfor-
mance evaluations and promotions (Borman, White, &
Dorsey, 1995; Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Van Scotter &
Motowidlo, 1996). Thus, OCB is a form of impression
management when the motive for the behavior is based on
the desire to be viewed favorably in order to receive rewards
and/or avoid punishment (Bolino, 1999). It was measured
with the 10-item IM scale developed by Rioux and Penner
(2001). An example item is “I fear appearing irresponsible.”
The reliability was .82.
Results
Pretests
Confirmatory Factor Analysis.  To confirm the factor structure
of the scales used in this study, a number of confirmatory
factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted. If we had con-
ducted one CFA with the items from all the variables
included in the model, we would have violated the recom-
mended ratio of sample size to items (Jackson, 2003; Kline,
2004). Thus, we examined several CFAs with subsets of
measures. The hypothesized four-factor model for the
organization-referent scales (POS, P-O fit, felt obligation
Lemmon and Wayne 9
toward the organization, and altruistic concern for the
organization) demonstrated good fit (χ2 = 1432.80, df =
489; comparative fit index [CFI] = .94, normed fit index
[NFI] = .94, standardized root mean square residual
[SRMR] = .10; Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hu & Bentler,
1999; Kline, 2004). We compared this factor structure with
an alternative three-factor model whereby the two motive
measures (felt obligation toward the organization and
altruistic concern for the organization) were collapsed into
a single scale. This resulted in significantly poorer model
fit (Δχ2 = 160.9, Δdf = 3, p < .001), as did the factor struc-
ture that collapsed POS and P-O fit into a single scale
(Δχ2 = 1018.06, Δdf = 3, p < .001). The results for the
hypothesized, four-factor model of the supervisor-referent
scales (LMX, supervisor–subordinate similarity, felt obli-
gation toward the supervisor, altruistic concern for the
supervisor) demonstrated acceptable fit (χ2 =1378.56, df =
371; CFI = .92, NFI = .92, SRMR = .11). We compared this
factor structure with an alternative three-factor model
whereby the two motive measures (felt obligation for the
supervisor and altruistic concern for the supervisor) were
collapsed into a single scale. This resulted in significantly
poorer model fit (Δχ2 = 374.37, Δdf = 3, p < .001), as did
the factor structure that collapsed LMX and supervisor–
subordinate similarity into a single scale (Δχ2 = 189.88,
Δdf = 3, p < .001). The next set of models comparisons
involved our motive measures (felt obligation toward the
organization, felt obligation toward the supervisor; altruis-
tic concern for the organization; altruistic concern for the
supervisor, impression management). The five-factor
model demonstrated acceptable fit (χ2 =1866.39, df = 769;
CFI = .90, NFI = .90, SRMR = .08). Collapsing felt obliga-
tion toward the organization and supervisor resulted in sig-
nificantly poorer model fit (Δχ2 = 252.33, Δdf = 4, p <
.001), and collapsing altruistic concern for the organization
and the supervisor also resulted in significantly poorer
model fit (Δχ2 = 357.34, Δdf = 4, p < .001). Finally, we
compared a model of OCB that distinguished between
OCB toward the supervisor and organization and a model
that collapsed both forms of OCB onto one factor. The lat-
ter model demonstrated significantly reduced model fit
(Δχ2 = 215.82, Δdf = 1, p < .001).
Common Method Variance.  Because several variables were
based on subordinates’ responses, we sought to examine the
extent to which common method variance may have
affected our results. Following Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,
and Podsakoff (2003), we tested for the prevalence of com-
mon method variance separately for the organization-referent
measures and the supervisor-referent measures. First, we
examined a model with all items loading onto a single com-
mon methods factor. For both the organization- and super-
visor-referent scales, this model demonstrated poor fit (χ2 =
4452.40, df = 495; CFI = .88, NFI = .88, SRMR =.12, and
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
χ2 =2939.90, df = 377; CFI = .85, NFI = .85, SRMR = .12,
respectively). Next, we added a common methods factor to
the hypothesized four-factor model and examined the vari-
ance explained by the common methods factor. If the
amount of common method variance explained exceeds
25%, then it is likely that common method variance is bias-
ing the results significantly (L. J. Williams, Cote, & Buck-
ley, 1989). For both the organization-referent and
supervisor-referent models, the amount of variance
explained by the addition of the common methods factor
did not exceed 25%, and thus there is less concern that com-
mon method variance is significantly affecting the results.
WABA Analysis.  Among the 164 supervisors who completed
surveys and whose subordinate also completed a survey,
67 provided ratings for one subordinate (40.9%) and 51
provided ratings on 2 to 6 subordinates (31.1%). Within-
and-between analysis (WABA; Dansereau, Alutto, and
Yammarino, 1984) was conducted on the OCB ratings
from these 51 supervisors to determine whether the analy-
ses should be conducted at the individual or group level.
WABA I (Dansereau et al., 1986) was conducted on OCBO
and OCBS. Results indicated that OCBO and OCBS vary
at the group level, suggesting that there may be some
supervisor effects. WABA II (Dansereau et al., 1986) was
performed to evaluate whether the observed bivariate rela-
tionships were consistent with interpretation at the indi-
vidual level of analysis. The results indicated that all of the
relationships that OCBO and OCBS had with other vari-
ables included in the model were equivocal. Equivocal
means that both within-eta and between-eta correlations
were greater than zero but not significantly different from
each other. Thus, the WABA results confirmed that the
relationships of the other variables with OCBO and OCBS
can be interpreted at the individual level of analysis.
Although WABA I suggested that these two variables vary
at the group level, their relation with other variables exist
at the individual level. Thus, the tests of the hypotheses
were conducted at the individual level of analysis.
Tests of the Hypothesized Model
Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, and correla-
tions among the variables. To test our main effect hypothe-
ses, we used regression. Hypothesis 1 was not supported, in
that felt obligation toward the supervisor was not signifi-
cantly related to OCBO after controlling for impression
management (β = .10, t = 1.35, p > .05), but Hypothesis 2
was supported in that felt obligation toward the supervisor
was related to OCBS after controlling for impression man-
agement (β = 0.34, t = 3.15, p < .01). Hypothesis 3 was also
supported: altruistic concern for the organization was posi-
tively related to OCBO (β = 0.29, t = 2.91, p < .01), as was
Hypothesis 4 in that altruistic concern for the supervisor
10 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 

Table 1.  Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlationsa.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  1.  Perceived Organizational Support 5.07 1.09  
 2. Person–Organization Fit 5.65 0.87 .57**  
 3. Leader–Member Exchange 5.67 1.10 .57** .35**  
 4. Supervisor–Subordinate Similarity 4.99 1.32 .43** .36** .80**  
  5.  Felt Obligation toward the Organization 5.95 0.83 .41** .65** .32** .35**  
  6.  Felt Obligation toward the Supervisor 5.99 0.85 .36** .44** .58** .53** .71**  
  7.  Altruistic Concern for the Organization 6.03 0.65 .64** .81** .48** .48** .72** .54**  
  8.  Altruistic Concern for the Supervisor 5.48 0.69 .25** .36** .35** .38** .31** .44** .36**  
10. OCBOa,b 5.58 0.87 .35** .22** .47** .38** .17* .30** .24** .24**  
11. OCBSa,c 5.43 1.30 .22** .14 .32** .25** .08 .24** .12 .21** .64**  
12.  Impression Management 5.55 0.89 .01 .13 .16* .13 .17* .14 .12 .15 .20* .12

Note. N = 164.
a. Data obtained from supervisor of respondent. All other variables were based on subordinate responses.
b. Organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the organization.
c. Organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the supervisor.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

was related to OCBS after controlling for impression man-
agement (β = 0.26, t = 1.99, p < .05).
The mediation hypotheses (Hypotheses 5-8) were tested
using structural equation modeling via LISREL 8.7 (maxi-
mum likelihood estimation). Because our sample size pre-
vented us from testing a full structural equation model, we
employed a single-indicator approach (e.g., Rindova,
Williamson, Petkova, & Sever, 2005; Sass & Smith, 2006;
Tekleab, Takeuchi, & Taylor, 2005). The path between the
manifest variable and the latent construct was set to the
square root of the reliability for the latent construct. The
error terms of the manifest variables were set to 1 minus the
reliability times the variance (L. J. Williams & Hazer,
1986). It has been shown that the use of single-score indica-
tors conformed better to distributional assumptions and pro-
duced virtually identical latent parameter estimates as the
multiple indicator approach (Netemeyer, Johnston, &
Burton, 1990). The correlations among the exogenous latent
constructs were allowed to be estimated, as is the recom-
mended practice (Kelloway, 1998; Kline, 2004). Several
error variances were allowed to correlate. First, the error
variances of felt obligation toward the organization and
toward the supervisor were allowed to correlate since the
measures were similar, and there is reason to suspect that
the error terms may correlate. Second, the error variances of
altruistic concern for the organization and for the supervisor
were also allowed to correlate because these two variables
both refer to altruistic concern. The error variances of felt
obligation for the organization and altruistic concern for the
organization, and felt obligation for the supervisor and
altruistic concern for the supervisor were allowed to corre-
late. This is because these two pairs of variables are about
the same target, either the organization or the supervisor,
thus it is possible that error variances may be associated.
Finally, the error variances of OCBO and OCBS were
allowed to correlate because they both focus on behaviors
that go beyond role requirements. Several criteria were used
to assess model fit: CFI, NFI, and SRMR. Root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) was not reported because
it tends to reject true models in sample sizes less than 250
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998; Hu & Bentler,
1999). Standardized path estimates are provided in Figure 2;
that is, Figure 2 represents the results of the meditational
hypotheses only (Hypotheses 5-8).
Utilizing the change in chi-square test (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1998; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), the hypothesized
model was compared against two alternative models (see
Table 2). In Alternative Model 1, paths were added from
POS and P-O fit to OCBO and from LMX to OCBS because
these three predictors had significant, positive relationships
with mediating variables that were significantly related to
citizenship behavior. This model sought to test whether
POS, P-O fit, and LMX have direct effects on citizenship
behavior, in addition to the indirect effects depicted in the
hypothesized model. While the fit indices for this alterna-
tive model were good, there was not a significant improve-
ment over the hypothesized model (Δχ2 = 7.44, Δdf = 3,
n.s.). Alternative Model 2 added paths from felt obligation
toward the organization and altruistic concern for the orga-
nization to OCBS and from felt obligation toward the super-
visor and altruistic concern for the supervisor to OCBO.
This alternative model sought to examine whether felt obli-
gation and altruistic motives had cross-referent (supervisor
or organization) relationships. Results suggested good
model fit, but, again, the change in chi-square was nonsig-
nificant (Δχ2 = 7.67, Δdf = 4, n.s.). Thus, we retained our
hypothesized model (χ2 =127.77, df = 28; CFI = .93, NFI =
.93, SRMR =.13). (RMSEA was not reported because it

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014

Lemmon and Wayne 11

Figure 2.  Standardized path estimates.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 2.  Structural Equation Model Comparisons.

Model χ2 (df) NFI CFI SRMR Model Comparisons

Hypothesized Model 125.77 (28) .93 .93 .13  
Alternative Model 1a 137.50 (24)** .91 .91 .14 Model 2 compared with Hypothesized Model
Alternative Model 2b 141.38 (24)** .91 .91 .15 Model 3 compared with Hypothesized Model
Alternative Model 3c 146.48 (26)** .90 .90 .15 Model 3 compared with Hypothesized Model

Note. N = 164. NFI = normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.
a. Paths between perceived organizational support and person–organization fit to organizational citizenship directed toward the supervisor added, and
between leader–member exchange to organizational citizenship toward the organization added.
b. Paths between perceived organizational support and person–organization fit to altruistic concern for the supervisor added, and between leader–
member exchange and supervisor–subordinate similarity to altruistic concern for the organization added.
c. Paths between perceived organizational support and felt obligation for the supervisor added, and between leader–member exchange and felt
obligation for the organization added.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

tends to reject true models in sample sizes less than 250;
Hair et al., 1998; Hu & Bentler, 1999.) Standardized path
estimates are provided in Figure 2.
Using SEM, we followed the Baron and Kenny (1986)
step-wise tests to ascertain the extent of support for our
meditational hypotheses. Hypothesis 5a proposed that felt
obligation would mediate the relation between POS and
OCBO. While felt obligation toward the organization was
significantly related to OCBO in a simple regression equa-
tion (see Hypothesis 1), our structural equation model indi-
cates that when POS is included as an antecedent to felt
obligation toward the organization, the mediation effect
proposed in Hypothesis 5a is not supported insofar as felt
obligation toward the organization is no longer significantly
related to OCBO. We then tested felt obligation toward the
supervisor as mediating the relation between LMX and
OCBS (Hypothesis 5b). First, LMX was significantly cor-
related with OCBS (r = .32, p < .01), as indicated in the
correlation table. Second, in the structural equation model,
LMX was significantly related to felt obligation toward the
supervisor (β = .65, p < .01). Third, in the structural equa-
tion model felt obligation had a positive relationship with
OCBS (β = .10, p < .05). And finally, as demonstrated in
Alternative Model 1, adding a path between LMX and
OCBS did not improve our hypothesized model’s fit
(e.g., Liao, 2007). Therefore, felt obligation toward the

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014

12 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 
supervisor fully mediated the relation between LMX and
OCBS. Additionally, the hypothesized model indicated a
β = 0.11 indirect effect of LMX on OCBS, and the Sobel
(1982) test of indirect effects suggested that LMX had a
significant indirect effect on OCBS (z = 2.64, p < .01).
While the Sobel test has the advantage of analyzing an indi-
rect effect based on statistics from a structural equation
model, which includes modeling of error terms and concur-
rent hypothesis testing, Preacher and Hayes (2008) outline
some limitations of this test statistic. They specifically warn
that the Sobel test may be inaccurate because the p value
distribution is derived from a normal distribution and that,
particularly in smaller sample sizes, biases results.
Furthermore, in their review of the literature the authors
summarize additional limitations of Sobel tests, including
an increased chance of Type 1 error and low power to detect
effects. The Preacher and Hayes (2008, p. 880) method of
testing indirect effects involves bootstrapping, which
“involves repeatedly sampling from the data set and esti-
mating the indirect effect in each resampled data set.” The
resampling provides a bias-corrected confidence interval,
and a significant indirect effect occurs if the data fits within
that confidence interval. In testing this particular hypothesis
(5b), Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) test for an indirect effect
of LMX on OCBS through felt obligation, after controlling
for impression management, was significant (β = 0.65, with
the bias-corrected confidence interval of .01 to .14).
Furthermore, the total effect of LMX on OCBS was signifi-
cant (β = 0.53, t = 7.36, p < .01).
Hypothesis 6, which suggested that altruistic concern for
the organization would mediate the relation between P-O fit
and OCBO, was supported. First, P-O fit was significantly
correlated with OCBO (r = .22, p < 0.01). Second, in the
structural equation model P-O fit was significantly related
to altruistic concern for the organization (β = 0.63, p < .01).
Third, in the structural equation model it was found that
altruistic concern for the organization was strongly related
to OCBO (β = 0.27, p < .01). Finally, Alternative Model 1
suggested that altruistic concern partially mediated the rela-
tionship between P-O fit and OCBO, but this alternative
model did not improve model fit and thus was rejected.
Additionally, the indirect effect of P-O fit on OCBO was
.17, and the Sobel (1982) test of indirect effects indicated
that this was significant (z = 2.65, p < .01). Preacher and
Hayes’ (2008) test for an indirect significant effect sup-
ported the Sobel test findings, with P-O fit having a signifi-
cant indirect effect on OCBO through altruistic concern for
the organization, controlling for impression management
(β = 0.12, with bias-corrected confidence intervals of .02
to .21). There was also a significant total effect of POS on
OCBO (β = 0.35, t = 7.00, p < .01). Hypothesis 7 proposed
that altruistic concern for the supervisor would mediate
the relationship between perceived supervisor–subordinate
similarity and OCBS. In the structural equation model,
although the two variables were significantly related in a
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
simple regression equation, the relationship between altru-
istic concern for the supervisor and OCBS failed to reach
significance when perceived supervisor–subordinate simi-
larity was included in the structural equation model, and
therefore we did not find support for this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 8a, which predicted that altruistic concern
for the organization would mediate the relation between
POS and OCBO, was supported. In the structural equation
model POS was significantly related to altruistic concern
for the organization (β = 0.36, p < .01) and altruistic con-
cern for the organization was significantly related to OCBO
(β = 0.27, p < .01). Also, the partial mediation effect was
modeled in Alternative Model 1 and did not significantly
improve the hypothesized model’s fit. Thus, altruistic con-
cern for the organization fully mediated the relationship
between POS and OCBO. Tests of indirect effects indicated
an effect of .11 of POS on OCBO, which the Sobel (1982)
test of indirect effects indicates is significant (z = 2.59, p <
.01). Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) test for an indirect signifi-
cant effect was also analyzed. The findings indicate that,
after controlling for impression management, POS had a
significant indirect effect on OCBO when mediated by
altruism toward the organization (β = 0.15, with the bias-
corrected confidence intervals of .05 to .27). Furthermore,
there was a significant total effect of POS on OCBO (β =
0.33, t = 7.00, p < .01). Hypothesis 8b proposed altruistic
concern would mediate the relation between LMX and
OCBS and was not supported because in the structural
equation model the relationship between LMX and altruis-
tic concern for the supervisor was not significant.
Supplementary Analyses
A final test was conducted related to organization-focused
antecedents of OCBO. We sought to examine the relative
strength of the significant predictors of OCBO, namely,
altruistic concern for the organization and impression man-
agement. This test involved two parts: first, analysis of the
hypothesized model, here Figure 2, and second, the test of
same hypothesized model with the two paths of interest for
comparing strength set equal. If the second model has com-
paratively worse fit than the first model (using a change in
chi-square test; Kline, 2004), then there is evidence that the
two paths do vary in their strength (Cheung & Rensvold,
2002). We found that when altruistic concern for the orga-
nization and impression management were set equal, the
model fit significantly decreased (Δχ2 = 8.43 (Δ1), p < .01),
indicating that the paths between altruism toward the orga-
nization and impression management were significantly
distinct, with the former being stronger.
Discussion
There have been very few studies that have examined
motives in relation to OCB and how these motives vary
Lemmon and Wayne 13
depending on the beneficiary of the citizenship behavior.
Based on Batson’s (1991) theory of egoistic and altruistic
motivation, we examined felt obligation as an egoistic
motive for OCB and altruistic concern as an altruistic
motive for OCB, and identified key antecedents of these
motivational states. We also empirically examined the pat-
tern of relations among these antecedents, motives, and dif-
ferent targets or beneficiaries of the helping behavior.
Results provided support for the notion that both felt obliga-
tion and altruistic concern are important predictors of OCB.
Without consideration to antecedents, felt altruism toward
the organization and supervisor both were associated with
target-specific behavior, supporting the idea that other-con-
cern can motivate target-consistent helping behavior
(OCBO and OCBS, respectively; Karriker & Williams,
2009). Drawing on social exchange theory and identifica-
tion theories, the mediation hypotheses suggested that when
stimulated by mechanisms that emphasized the employee–
supervisor relationship, felt obligation drives OCBS, while
altruistic concern stimulates identification with the organi-
zation, and was found to drive OCBO.
The Relationship Among Exchange, Felt
Obligation, and OCBS
From a social exchange perspective, our model suggests
OCBS was driven largely by the exchange relationship the
employee had with his or her supervisor. These results sug-
gest that feelings of obligation toward the supervisor is a
critical mechanism through which a high-quality supervi-
sor–subordinate relationship exerts influence on employee
extra-role behavior. These results also provide further evi-
dence for social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm
of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), specifically as it relates to
an interpersonal (as opposed to a personified) exchange part-
ner. Employees with deeper connections to their supervisor
will feel more obligated to him or her and will consequently
be more likely to engage in OCB directed at their supervisor
to fulfill obligations inherent in higher quality relationships
(Hu & Liden, 2012; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne
et al., 1997; Wayne & Green, 1993). This finding contrib-
utes to the current literature by identifying an employee’s
feelings of obligation as an important mediator in the rela-
tion between LMX and citizenship behavior directed at
one’s supervisor, indicating that person-to-person relation-
ships may be more effective at stimulating felt obligation
than person-to-organization relationships.
The Relationship Among Identification, Altruistic
Concern, and OCBO
From a role identity perspective, in contrast to OCBS,
results revealed that OCBO was driven largely by identifi-
cation and empathy for the organization, operationalized as
POS and P-O fit, both of which prompt feelings of altruism
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
for the organization. Furthermore, in supplementary analy-
ses we found that altruism toward the organization had a
stronger relationship with OCBO than impression manage-
ment, further advancing its criticality as a motive for OCBO.
These results suggest that employees can develop altruistic
concern for the organization, and such concern may also
stimulate them to engage in behaviors beyond their job
description that benefit the greater interest of the company.
These results also indicate that altruistic concern for the
organization is an important link between perceptions of fit
and feelings of organizational support and helping behav-
ior. Two significant antecedents for altruistic concern for
the organization were found. Perceived organizational sup-
port was related to altruistic concern for the organization.
Here, when an employee feels supported by his organiza-
tion, he will both feel obligated toward it and feel concerned
about its welfare (Levinson, 1965). Furthermore, P-O fit
was also a strong predictor of altruistic concern for the
organization. This finding indicates that when employees
share similar goals and values with the organization, they
develop a deeper concern for the values and goals of the
organization, likely because they can take the perspective of
the organization. For instance, employees may share the
same belief that organizations, as well as individuals, have
a civic responsibility to protect the environment and to “be
green.” If their organization makes continuous efforts to
achieve this goal, employees will come to understand how
important this mission is to the organization. Moreover,
they may also become more concerned about how well the
organization is performing since they value the contribu-
tions the organization has made to protect the environment
and the community. Thus, P-O fit is linked with feelings of
altruism toward the organization.
Previous research has found that shared similarity will
evoke altruistic feelings (Batson et al., 1995). Thus, it was
hypothesized that shared similarity between supervisor and
subordinate would be related to altruistic concern for the
supervisor. Results support this contention. However, the
lack of findings between altruistic concern for the supervi-
sor and OCBS indicate that while supervisor–subordinate
similarity is predictive of shared values or perceptions, it
does not manifest itself in terms of helping behaviors. More
proximate outcomes of altruistic concern for the supervisor
may be the development of a mentoring relationship or a
friendship.
Several of our hypotheses were not supported, yet the
significant results of this study suggest that motivations
for OCBS and OCBO are distinct. In a structural equation
model that included antecedents of altruistic concern,
altruistic concern predicted OCBO, but not OCBS.
Furthermore, felt obligation was related to OCBS, but not
OCBO. Approaches to OCB research that focuses solely
on social exchange or role-identity perspectives of OCB
motivation, then, are inadequate depictions of the psycho-
logical process underlying OCB enactment because the
14 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 
relationship between egoistic motivation and altruistic
motivation is nuanced. It may be that an employee’s feel-
ings of obligation at work is more important when consid-
ering one’s supervisor rather than one’s organization
because the supervisor is in direct control of the rewards
and resources an employee can receive (French & Raven,
1959; Ibarra, 1993). An employee is likely to recognize
that eliciting OCBS is part of the social exchange between
himself or herself and the supervisor, and that being cog-
nizant of his or her own contributions to the employee–
supervisor exchange is important in order to secure
rewards and resources, a decidedly egoistic perspective on
exchange. In contrast, with regard to exchange with the
organization, it may be easier for an employee to assume
that other employees will discharge their own obligations
toward the organization, thereby making felt obligation
toward the organization a weak driver of OCBO. For
example, because the organization lacks the ability to
actively calculate the traded resources in an employee–
organization exchange, OCB efforts directed at the organi-
zation are less identifiable. Research on social loafing
suggest that individuals generally rely on others to con-
tribute effort or resources when in larger groups (such as
being a member of an organization) because of this
reduced identifiability (Karau & Williams, 1993; K.
Williams, Harkins, & Latané, 1981). In contrast, altruism
toward the organization may operate differently.
Organizational members who perceive themselves as sim-
ilar to the organization are more likely to be able to take
the perspective of the organization, developing concern
for the organization over time. Indeed, literature on orga-
nizational identification suggests that employees are likely
to experience empathy and concern for the organization
when the goals and values of the organization coincide
with personal values of the employee (Ashforth & Mael,
1989). Thus, organizational identification may be an
important reason why employees are likely to have proso-
cial or altruistic motivations to aid the organization
because they care about the organization’s performance.
The pattern of results prompted us to explore a more
general explanation for the overarching pattern of results.
Here we turn to work by Flynn (2005) on exchange. He sug-
gests that exchange behavior—inclusive of OCB—is pre-
mised on the goal one has for the interaction. Exchange
behavior with goals aiming to serve another’s interest
incites reciprocal exchange. In line with our model, leader–
member exchange, indicative of high-quality exchange, is
likely valuable to an employee, insofar as the leader has
access to critical resources and rewards (Sparrowe & Liden,
1997), and thus maintaining the exchange is a priority.
Because the employee is feeling supported by the supervi-
sor in higher LMX relationship, the implicit feeling of obli-
gation to reciprocate looms, manifesting via OCBS. This
also suggests a rationale for why altruism is not a critical
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
motive. Flynn states that, under reciprocal exchange,
exchange is typically episodic. The giving by one partner is
a reflection of previously received resources. Thus, in a
reciprocal exchange involving an employee and leader,
employee behavior such as OCBS is predicated on implicit
calculation of what has been received versus what needs to
be given. At its core, then, reciprocal exchange is concerned
less with the well-being of the partner and more on how to
maintain a reciprocal exchange with the partner. Altruism,
then, is not a dominant motive in this type of exchange.
Flynn describes a second type of exchange behavior—
generalized exchange—wherein one helps another because
he or she has a vested interest in the collective welfare of
the “group,” here, the organization. This type of exchange
is more common when direct reciprocation is not possible,
for example, when the recipient, in this case, is not human,
but instead anthropromorphized and consequently cannot
offer immediate feedback following receipt of some
resource within the exchange. POS and P-O fit both stimu-
late interest in the organization’s welfare, and in line with
generalized exchange, prompt altruism and subsequent
OCBO. Because this type of exchange is not reflective on
explicit calculation of the resources exchanged in the rela-
tionship, but instead on the well-being of the partner, it pro-
vides a rationale for the greater impact of altruism on OCBO
than OCBS. In summary, when considered concurrently,
the impact of felt obligation on OCBS appears to over-
shadow any altruistic motives, and the impact of altruism
on OCBO appears to overshadow felt obligation. While
there may be discrete instances where, for example, altru-
ism improves OCBS, when felt obligation is stimulated, it
becomes a less critical motive. Drawing on Flynn’s work,
we conclude that different exchange mechanisms, here
reciprocal and generalized exchange, create rules or norms
of behavior that manifest in different motivations for OCBO
and OCBS.
Future Research Directions
The present study provides support for Batson’s (1987)
theory of egoistic and altruistic motivation as drivers of
OCB. Importantly, our model demonstrates that felt obliga-
tion and altruistic concern have nuanced effects based on
the type of OCB enacted. Future research can continue this
line of work in several ways.
First, our main effect hypotheses suggest that both altru-
istic concern and egoism relate to OCBS. Although we
found a nonsignificant relationship between altruistic con-
cern for the supervisor and OCBS in our mediation model,
we understand that this may be because of misspecification
of antecedents of altruistic concern. Therefore, we suggest
that researchers explore alternative antecedents for altruis-
tic concern toward the supervisor in order to more fully
understand how it can be made salient. For example,
Lemmon and Wayne 15
recently there has been growing interest in the construct of
servant leadership. Servant leadership is a style of leader-
ship that emphasizes what a leader can do for a subordinate,
rather than the traditional model of top-down management
(Greenleaf, 1970/1991). A servant leader is primarily con-
cerned with followers’ development, both in terms of per-
sonal growth and skill refinement, and further sees his or
her role as primarily supporting subordinate performance
(Hunter et al., 2012; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson,
2008). Because servant leadership involves a leader provid-
ing social and task support, feelings of benevolence and
kinship are likely to grow out of the relationship, forming
feelings of altruistic concern (Hunter at el., 2012; Liden
et al., 2008; van Dierendonck, 2011). Our model suggests
that from this altruistic concern, OCBS may be elicited.
More broadly, this also suggests that alternative perspec-
tives on what stimulates altruistic concern for the supervi-
sor are of interest to understanding how this mechanism
relates to OCBS.
One additional area of future research includes examin-
ing alternative exchange motives of citizenship behaviors,
beyond altruistic concern and felt obligation. Cropanzano
and Mitchell (2005) suggest examination of Meeker’s
(1971) exchange rules, which include altruism and egoism,
but also rules such as group gain and status consistency.
Meeker’s group gain exchange rule states that individuals
may chose exchange communally in that individuals con-
tribute to a “common pot” when they can, and take contri-
butions from a “common pot” when needed. This particular
motivation for citizenship behavior may be particularly
prevalent in high-stress environments, when time and
energy for extra-role behavior are limited. The status con-
sistency exchange rule implies that behavior is motivated
by the need to affirm or attain a particular rank standing.
While self-serving like egoism, it is a more specific type of
exchange rule in that it suggests that employees elicit citi-
zenship behavior only in those situations where the citizen-
ship behavior confirms the distribution of power between
the employee and his or her coworkers, supervisor, or orga-
nization. For example, one’s supervisor can have different
relationships with the employees he or she manages, with
some relationships being higher in quality than others (e.g.,
Hooper & Martin, 2008). It may behoove an employee to
elicit citizenship behavior to those coworkers with higher
quality relationships with the supervisor, in order to ingrati-
ate himself or herself to the supervisor by confirming the
status of these higher quality relationships.
A final area of future research that may be fruitful is the
examination of moderators of the relationship between
motivation for helping behavior and OCB. First, enactment
of OCB may vary based on how equity-sensitive individu-
als are (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987). Individuals
vary in the extent that they monitor and calculate rewards
or resources from other individuals. Some individuals
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
perceive they should receive more than what they are
offered, while others are less vigilant about monitoring
what they receive and care little for the balance between
what they have received and what they have offered others.
In terms of citizenship behavior motivated by felt obliga-
tion, equity sensitivity may moderate the relationship
between felt obligation and OCBS. For example, individu-
als who carefully monitor resources received from their
supervisor may feel less felt obligation to engage in citi-
zenship behavior simply because they readily perceive
receipt of fewer resources. Another potential moderator of
the relationship between motivation for helping and OCB
are cultural individual differences. For example, Thomas,
Au, and Ravlin (2003) suggest that employees in individu-
alistic cultures, characterized by a focus on the self and
individual gain, are more likely to engage in quid pro quo
exchanges—that is, exchanges that focus explicitly on
what and how much is being contributed, and egoistic con-
cern. In contrast, the authors propose that collectivistic
employees are more motivated to engage in exchange that
benefits the larger “group” that one belongs to. This type of
exchange is motivated by the notion that the employee
identifies and empathizes with the “group,” a tenant of
altruism. Thus, future research should examine whether
individualism and collectivism moderate the relationship
between egoism and altruism, and the tendency to elicit
OCBS and OCBO, respectively.
Practical Implications and Recommendations
Findings of the present study have several practical impli-
cations. The results indicate that employees who share simi-
lar values as the organization were more likely to develop
feelings of obligation to help their employer. This felt obli-
gation may motivate employees to enact more helping
behavior aimed at advancing organizational goals. There
are several practical implications of this finding. First, in
the recruiting and selection process, HR practitioners need
to hire those who understand and share the kind of beliefs
and values of the organization. Second, for new hires as
well as existing employees, it is also very important to con-
tinue to communicate the company values and goals during
the employee’s socialization. For instance, HR practices
such as training and coaching could be one mechanism
through which the company helps employees to have a bet-
ter understanding of its strategy and mission. Third, super-
visors and managers need to be aware that they are the ones
who have a major influence on their employees because
they interact with them on a daily basis. Thus, supervisors
and managers are responsible for communicating and
explaining the company’s overall goals and strategies to
employees. A good match between the person and organi-
zation has significant importance in terms of extra-role
behavior.
16 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 
Another implication comes from the finding that LMX
was a strong predictor of felt obligation toward the supervi-
sor, and such feeling of obligation fully mediated the rela-
tion between LMX and OCB directed at the supervisor.
This finding further emphasizes the impact the supervisor–
subordinate relationship has on employee work behaviors.
Given that OCB is important for organizational effective-
ness, supervisors should capitalize on this exchange
dynamic by focusing on building high-quality relationships
with subordinates. As indicated by the findings, high-qual-
ity exchanges from the leader, such as provision of resources
or support, result in employees feeling obligated toward
their supervisor. Such feelings of obligation, in turn, moti-
vate employees to not only perform but also go beyond job
requirements. Thus, leadership training and coaching pro-
grams might be beneficial for supervisors to provide the
support employees need.
Limitations and Strengths
The results of this study should be considered in light of its
limitations. Most notably, the cross-sectional design does
not allow casual inferences. Only longitudinal designs with
control groups can directly address the causality issue. A
second limitation is that this study examines two types of
OCB (OCBO and OCBS) and two specific motives (felt
obligation and altruistic concern). However, helping behav-
ior extends beyond these two targets, including interper-
sonal or coworker OCB (e.g., Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, &
Ensley, 2004). Furthermore, there may be other motives for
OCB beyond felt obligation and altruistic concern. Future
studies on motivation for helping behavior should examine
additional beneficiaries of OCB as well as additional
motives and operationalizations for those motives. Despite
the limitations, the present study has several strengths. One
strength is that the supervisor provided ratings of employee
citizenship behavior. This helped alleviate concerns about
common method variance. Another strength is that all the
participants were full-time working adults. This enhances
the generalizability of the findings. Finally, this is the first
study we are aware of that examines motives for OCB that
benefits the organization and OCB that benefits the supervi-
sor as well as antecedents of those motives.
Conclusion
Perceived organizational support and P-O fit are important
antecedents of altruistic concern toward the organization,
which relates to behaviors that benefit the organization
(OCBO; Organ, 1988). Similarly, high LMX was related to
employees’ feelings of obligation toward the supervisor,
which related to behaviors aimed at supporting and aiding
the supervisor (OCBS). Thus, felt obligation and altruistic
concern are distinct motives for OCB, with felt obligation
inducing more helping behavior directed toward the
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
supervisor, and altruistic concern inducing more helping
behavior directed toward the organization. In sum, results
of the present study indicate the importance of considering
the beneficiary of the OCB when examining egoistic and
altruistic motivations of OCB.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equa-
tion modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Aron, A., & Aron, E. (2000). Self-expansion motivation and
including other in the self. In W. Ickes & S. Duck (Eds.), The
social psychology of personal relationships (pp. 109-128).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational
support and psychological contracts: a theoretical integration.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 491-509.
Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the
organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
doi:10.2307/258189
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-medi-
ator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altru-
istic? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65-122). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60412-8
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-
psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of
social psychology (pp. 282-316). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei0519
Batson, C. D., Cowles, C., & Coke, J. S. (1979). Altruistic media-
tion of the response to a lady in distress: Egoistic or altruistic?
(Unpublished manuscript). University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., &
Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An additional antecedent of empathic
concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 65-74.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.65
Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Encouraging words con-
cerning the evidence for altruism. Psychological Inquiry, 2,
159-168.
Batson, C. D., Turk, C. L., Shaw, L. L., & Klein, T. R. (1995).
Information function of altruistic emotion: Learning that we
Lemmon and Wayne 17
value the other’s welfare. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 68, 300-313. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.300
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (2013).
Organizational citizenship behavior and career outcomes:
The cost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management,
39, 958-984.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management:
Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management
Review, 24, 82-98. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002).
Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505-522.
doi:10.2307/4134400
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of
rate task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisors
and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
80, 168-177. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.168
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational
behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725.
doi:10.2307/258391
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, S. D. (2002). The convergent and dis-
criminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87, 875-884. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.87.5.875
Callero, P. L. (1985). Role identity salience. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 48, 203-214. doi:10.2307/3033681
Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., &
Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its con-
tent and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
730-743. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.730
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection
and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484. doi:10.2307/2393204
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-
of-fit indices for testing measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S.
L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship:
When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 481-494. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.73.3.481
Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic medi-
ation of helping: A two-stage model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 36, 752-766. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.36.7.752
Comte, I. A. (1875). System of positive polity (Vol. 1). London,
England: Longmans, Green (Original work published 1851).
Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the psy-
chological contract for the employment relationship: A large
scale survey. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 903-930.
DOI:10.1111/1467-6486.00210
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Conway, N. (2005). Exchange rela-
tionships: Examining psychological contract and perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
774-781. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.774
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
Cropanzano, R., Chrobot-Mason, D., Rupp, D. E., & Prehar,
C. (2004). Accounting for corporate injustice. Human
Resource Management Review, 14, 107-133. doi:10.1016/j.
hrmr.2004.02.006
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange the-
ory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31,
874-900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J., & Yammarino, F. (1984). Theory
testing in organizational behavior: The variant approach.
Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.
Dansereau, F., Chandrasekaran, G., Dumas, M., Coleman, D.,
Erlich, S., & Bagchi, E. (1986). DETECT: Application and
user’s guide. Williamsville, NY: Institute for Theory Testing.
Davis, M. H. (1983a). The effects of dispositional empa-
thy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimen-
sional approach. Journal of Personality, 51, 167-184.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00860.x
Davis, M. H. (1983b). Measuring individual differences in
empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach.
Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
De Dreu, C., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orienta-
tion in organizational behavior: Implications for job perfor-
mance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 913-926. doi:10.1037/a0014494
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to
prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101,
91-119. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., &
Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organiza-
tional support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990).
Perceived organizational support and employee diligence,
commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75, 51-59. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D.
(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 500-507. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Managers'
perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-
member exchange to satisfaction and performance relation-
ships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 321-330.
Finkelstein, M. A., & Penner, L. A. (2004). Predicting organiza-
tional citizenship behavior: Integrating the functional and role
identity approaches. Social Behavior and Personality, 32,
383-398.
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity orientations and forms of social
exchange in organizations. Academy of Management Review,
30, 737-750.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social
power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power
(pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A prelimi-
nary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
doi:10.2307/2092623
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of
dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
18 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175-208).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach
to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange
(LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. Leadership
Quarterly, 6, 219-247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good
actors: Prosocial impression management motives as interac-
tive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 900-912. doi:10.1037/a0013770
Greenleaf, R. K. (1991). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN:
The Robert K. Greenleaf Center. (Original work published
1970)
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Hoffman, M. L. (1981). Is altruism part of human nature?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 121-137.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.1.121
Hooper, D. T., & Martin, R. (2008). Beyond personal leader-
member exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of per-
ceived LMX variability on employee reactions. Leadership
Quarterly, 19, 20-30. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.002
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria ver-
sus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2012). Relative leader-member exchange
within team contexts: How and when social comparison
impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 1-26.
doi.org/10.1111/peps.12008
Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological
contract and organizational citizenship behavior in China:
Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89, 311-321. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.89.2.311
Hunter, E. M., Neubert, M. K., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L.
M., & Weinberger, E. (2012). Servant leaders inspire servant
followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employers and the
organization. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 316-331.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new
perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity con-
struct. Academy of Management Review, 12, 222-234.
doi:10.2307/258531
Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation
involvement: Determinants of technical and administra-
tive roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 471-501.
doi:10.2307/256589
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-
member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analy-
sis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-277.
Jackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting sample size and number of
parameter estimates: Some support for the N:q hypothesis.
Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 128-141.
Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. J., & Turban, D. J. (2006). “All
in a day’s work”: How follower individual differences
and justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 841-855.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.841
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-ana-
lytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.65.4.681
Karriker, J. H., & Williams, M. L. (2009). Organizational jus-
tice and organizational citizenship behavior: A mediated
multifoci model. Journal of Management, 35, 112-135.
doi:10.1177/0149206307309265
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation
modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kline, R. B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kim, B. S. K., Ng, G. F., & Ahn, A. J. (2005). Effects of client
expectation for counseling success, client-counselor world-
view match, and client adherence to Asian and European
American cultural values on counseling process with Asian
Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 67-76.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.67
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, P. (1988). Measuring perceived
supervisory and organizational support. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075-1079. doi:10.1177/
0013164488484024
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integra-
tive review of its conceptualizations, measurement,
and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.
Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley,
A. B., Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V. (2009). Commitment, pro-
cedural justice, and organizational citizenship behavior: A
multifoci analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,
337-357.
Lavelle, J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a mul-
tifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and
citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of
Management, 33, 841-866. doi:10.1177/0149206307307635
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature of
dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A criti-
cal review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 52-65. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52
Lerner, M. J., & Meindl, J. R. (1981). Justice and altruism. In J.
P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping
behavior: Social, personality, and developmental perspec-
tives (pp. 213-232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between
man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9,
370-390. doi:10.2307/2391032
Liao, H. (2007). Do it right this time: The role of employee service
recovery performance in customer-perceived justice and cus-
tomer loyalty service failures. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 475-489. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.475
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of
leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through
scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.
doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80053-1
Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in
organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13,
572-587. doi:10.2307/258376
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008).
Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional
Lemmon and Wayne 19
measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly,
19, 161-177.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1997). Some
possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-
role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 61, 87-
98. doi:10.2307/1251745
McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of disposi-
tional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational
behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of
prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836-
844. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.836
Meeker, B. F. (1971). Decisions and exchange. American
Sociological Review, 36, 485-495. doi:10.2307/2093088
Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2004). Considering rational
self-interest as a disposition: Organizational implications of
other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 945-
959. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1253
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values
in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research.
Journal of Management, 24, 351-389. doi:10.1016/S0149-
2063(99)80065-8
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational jus-
tice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness per-
ceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76, 845-855. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845
Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G.
R. (2010). Optimism and the nonlinear citizenship behav-
ior-job satisfaction relationship in three studies. Journal of
Management, 36, 1505-1528.
Nauta, A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Der Vaart, T. (2002).
Social value orientation, organizational goal concerns and
interdepartmental problem-solving behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 199-213. doi:10.1002/job.136
Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis
of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equations
framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 148-157.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.148
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The
good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of
attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x
Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence
and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt
responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 838-844.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.838
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997).
Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and
quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 262-270. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.262
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational
citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of
Marketing Research, 31, 351-363. doi:10.2307/3152222
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, 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.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
Podsakoff, P. M., McKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter,
R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects
on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resam-
pling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects
in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,
879-891.
Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M.
(2005). Being good or being known: An empirical exami-
nation of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of
organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal,
48, 1033-1049.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organiza-
tional citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86, 1306-1314. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.86.6.1306
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994).
Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A lon-
gitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 137-
152. doi:10.2307/256773
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological con-
tracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic
virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 286-
298. doi:10.1002/job.4030160309
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psy-
chological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245-259. doi:10.1002/
job.4030150306
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of
social exchange relationships in predicting workplace out-
comes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925-946.
doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00036-5
Salamon, S. D., & Deutsch, Y. (2006). OCB as a handicap:
An evolutionary psychological perspective. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27, 185-199. doi:10.1002/job.348
Sass, D. A., & Smith, P. L. (2006). The effects of parceling uni-
dimensional scales on structural parameter estimates in struc-
tural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 13,
566-586. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1304_4
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel
Psychology, 40, 437-453. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb-
00609.x
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange
in organizational: Perceived organizational support, leader-
member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 81, 219-227. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.81.3.219
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality
and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-
focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 255-267. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.255
Shore, L. M., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Managerial per-
ceptions of employee commitment to the organization. Academy
of Management Journal, 38, 1593-1615. doi:10.2307/256845
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal
20 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 
of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.68.4.653
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect
effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.),
Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312). Washington,
DC: American Sociological Association. doi:10.2307/270723
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997) Process and structure in
leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review,
22, 522-552.
Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory investigations of empathy. In L
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 4, pp. 271-313). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Extending
the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social
exchange, and employee reactions: The role of contract viola-
tions. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 146-157.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J. M., & Ensley, M. D.
(2004). Moderators of the relationships between cowork-
ers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employ-
ees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455-465.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.455
Thomas, D. C., Au, K., & Ravlin, E. C. (2003). Cultural variation
and the psychological contract. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24, 451-471. doi:10.1002/job.209
Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate sim-
ilarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 228-234. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.228
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and
synthesis. Journal of Management, 37, 1228-1261.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facili-
tation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525-531.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.525
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-
member exchange on employee citizenship and impression
management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431-1440.
doi:10.1177/001872679304601204
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived orga-
nizational support and leader-member exchange: A social
exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40,
82-111. doi:10.2307/257021
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 15, 2014
Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability
as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303-311.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.303
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,
17, 601-617. doi:10.1177/014920639101700305
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of
method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions of
work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
462-468. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.462
Williams, L. J., & Hazer, J. T. (1986). Antecedents and conse-
quences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover mod-
els: A re-analysis using latent variable structural equation
methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 219-231.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.219
Wright, P. M., George, J. M., Farnsworth, S. R., & McMahan, G.
C. (1993). Productivity and extra-role behavior: The effects
of goals and incentives on spontaneous helping. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78, 374-381. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.78.3.374
Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The
impact of psychological contract breach on work-related out-
comes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647-680.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x
Author Biographies
Grace Lemmon is an Assistant Professor of Management at
DePaul University in Chicago. She received her PhD in business
administration from the University of Illinois at Chicago. Her
research interests include exchange relationships, psychological
contracts, and low-skill/low-wage workers.
Sandy J. Wayne is Professor of Management and Director of the
Center for Human Resource Management at the University of
Illinois at Chicago. She received her PhD in management from
Texas A&M University. Her research focuses on understanding
relationships in the workplace, including the antecedents and con-
sequences of employee-supervisor and employee-organization
relationships.