See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/11448834

The Nature and Dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A

Critical Review and Meta-Analysis

Article  in  Journal of Applied Psychology · March 2002

DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

1,613 17,192

3 authors, including:

Amir Erez
University of Florda
55 PUBLICATIONS   10,228 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rudeness View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amir Erez on 28 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
2002, Vol. 87, No. 1, 52– 65 0021-9010/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.52

The Nature and Dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis

Jeffrey A. LePine and Amir Erez Diane E. Johnson

University of Florida University of Alabama

This article reviews the literature on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and its dimensions as
proposed by D. W. Organ (1988) and other scholars. Although it is assumed that the behavioral
dimensions of OCB are distinct from one another, past research has not assessed this assumption beyond
factor analysis. Using meta-analysis, the authors demonstrate that there are strong relationships among
most of the dimensions and that the dimensions have equivalent relationships with the predictors (job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, fairness, trait conscientiousness, and leader support) most often
considered by OCB scholars. Implications of these results are discussed with respect to how the OCB
construct should be conceptualized and measured in the future.

Organizations have shifted away from the use of strict hierar-
chical structures and individualized jobs. Instead, somewhat au-
tonomous team-based work structures have been implemented, and
this implementation has increased the importance of individual
initiative and cooperation (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). As a result of
this trend, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), or behavior
that contributes indirectly to the organization through the mainte-
nance of the organization’s social system (Organ, 1997), has been
of increasing interest to both scholars and managers (Howard,
1995; LePine, Hanson, Borman, & Motowidlo, 2000; Motowidlo,
Borman, & Schmit, 1997; Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999; Organ &
Ryan, 1995).
Most of the research on OCB has been focused on identifying its
predictors (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). In conducting this re-
search, scholars generally link predictors to an overall measure of
OCB, or they link predictors to the dimensions of OCB suggested
by Organ (1988). These dimensions are most often measured by
using scales such as those developed by Podsakoff and his col-
leagues (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990).
Although the research from both approaches has generated some
very interesting and important findings, there is the question of
which OCB operationalization is most appropriate. This question
is fundamental because it relates not only to how OCB should be
measured but also to how results of research should be interpreted
and how OCB should be conceptualized in future theory-building
Jeffrey A. LePine and Amir Erez, Department of Management, War-
rington College of Business Administration, University of Florida; Diane
E. Johnson, Department of Management and Marketing, University of
Alabama.
A preliminary version of this article was presented at the 16th Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
April 2001, San Diego, California.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeffrey
A. LePine, Department of Management, Warrington College of Business
Administration, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117165, Gainesville, Flor-
ida 32611-7165. E-mail: lepineja@notes.cba.ufl.edu
efforts. For example, is it appropriate to draw inferences about
OCB from a study that considers only one or two dimensions of
OCB (e.g., altruism or sportsmanship)? As another example, what
kinds of inferences can be made about OCB from a study in which
the dimensions have different relationships with predictors, out-
comes, or both?
Unfortunately, and despite the existence of three published OCB
meta-analyses (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
Bommer, 1996a; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach,
2000), it is difficult to provide answers to such questions because
fundamental questions remain about the OCB construct itself and
how it relates to its dimensions (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998;
Motowidlo, 2000). Although the three previous meta-analyses
examined relationships among dimensions of OCB and a variety of
correlates, there was no focus on how the dimensions related to
one another, nor were there any systematic comparisons of how the
different dimensions related to other variables in the broader
nomological network.
The purpose of this study was to critically evaluate the nature of
the OCB construct and its dimensionality in the context of the
research that has taken place since its inception in the early 1980s.
We attempted to use the existing research on OCB to describe how
investigators have implicitly defined OCB relative to its dimen-
sions. We begin by briefly reviewing the literature on the OCB
construct and the development of the most popular dimensional
framework. Following this discussion, we present several meta-
analyses aimed at uncovering relationships among the dimensions
and between dimensions and predictors. We conclude with a
discussion of the implications of our findings.
The OCB Construct
Interest in work behavior that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that, in the
aggregate, promotes the effective functioning of the organization
(Organ, 1988, p. 4) can be traced back to Barnard (1938) and Katz
(1964). Greater scholarly interest in this type of behavior, how-
ever, seemed to be triggered in the early 1980s after Organ and his

52
 DIMENSIONALITY OF OCB
colleagues (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983)
used the term organizational citizenship behavior to describe it.
The focus of much of the early OCB research was in response to
Organ’s (1977) interest in the notion that job satisfaction might
influence organizational effectiveness through behaviors managers
want but cannot technically require (Motowidlo, 2000).
Over the past two decades, interest in behavior that generally fits
the definition of OCB has increased dramatically (see Podsakoff et
al., 2000). Scholars, however, have not been completely consistent
with the terminology used to label it. Labels for domains of
behavior that overlap with OCB as described by Organ (1988) and
others (e.g., Morrison, 1994; Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch,
1994) include prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Moto-
widlo, 1986; George, 1990, 1991; George & Bettenhausen, 1990;
O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986), organizational spontaneity (George
& Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997), and extrarole behavior
(Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995).
The label that is probably most relevant to human resource
management scholars and industrial and organizational psycholo-
gists is contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993,
1997; Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter,
1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Contextual performance
emerged in response to the concern that selection scholars and
practitioners were neglecting a significant portion of the job per-
formance domain (Motowidlo, 2000). That is, selection scholars
and practitioners traditionally focused on activities that either
supported or directly contributed to the transformation of the
organization’s inputs to outputs while they also tended to ignore
activities that supported the social and psychological context in
which the organization’s technical core was embedded. Borman
and Motowidlo (1993, 1997) referred to the former set of activities
as “task performance” and the latter set of activities as “contextual
performance.”
As Motowidlo (2000) pointed out, although the behavioral do-
mains of OCB and contextual performance overlap a great deal,
there initially were some important definitional differences. Spe-
cifically, Organ (1988) originally suggested that OCB must be
discretionary and nonrewarded, which was not the case for con-
textual performance. Almost a decade later, Organ (1997) recog-
nized the conceptual difficulties associated with these require-
ments (e.g., what is discretionary varies a great deal from person
to person and from situation to situation). He then redefined OCB
as behavior that contributes “to the maintenance and enhancement
of the social and psychological context that supports task perfor-
mance” (Organ, 1997, p. 91). This modified definition of OCB is
very similar to Borman and Motowidlo’s (1993, 1997) definition
of contextual performance. Regardless of the specifics of the
definition, however, scholars have always conceived of OCB as
consisting of several behavioral dimensions.
Dimensionality of OCB
Smith et al. (1983) were interested in predicting organizationally
beneficial behavior that was not formally rewarded and could not
be enforced by the organization in terms of formal role expecta-
tions or job requirements. They conducted structured interviews in
which managers identified “instances of helpful but not absolutely
required . . . job behavior” (Smith et al., 1983, p. 656). Supervisors
were then asked to rate how characteristic each behavior was of the
53
employee. Factor analyses of these ratings indicated two factors.
The first factor, labeled Altruism, captured behavior directly in-
tended to help a specific person in face-to-face situations (e.g.,
helping others who have been absent, volunteering for things that
are not required, orienting new people even though it is not
required, helping others who have heavy workloads). The second
factor, labeled Generalized Compliance, represented impersonal
behaviors such as compliance with norms defining a good worker
(e.g., being punctual, taking undeserved breaks [reverse scored],
not spending time in idle conversation). Although measures of
these dimensions continue to be used by researchers, some have
modified the response scales. Pond, Nacoste, Mohr, and Rodriguez
(1997), for example, asked individuals to rate the frequency with
which they engaged in the behavior described by the item.
Five years later, Organ (1988) proposed an expanded taxonomy
of OCB that included altruism (narrower than the altruism of
Smith et al., 1983), conscientiousness (a narrower form of gener-
alized compliance), sportsmanship (e.g., not complaining about
trivial matters), courtesy (e.g., consulting with others before taking
action), and civic virtue (e.g., keeping up with matters that affect
the organization). Podsakoff et al. (1990) were among the first
researchers to operationalize Organ’s (1988) five dimensions.
They used the definitions provided by Organ and generated items
that were then subjected to a Q sort and a confirmatory factor
analysis. The measure asked supervisors to rate the extent to which
they agreed that employees engaged in the behavior reflected in
the items. The resulting OCB scales have served as the basis for
OCB measurement in a large number of empirical studies (e.g.,
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Moorman, 1991, 1993;
Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993;
Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bom-
mer, 1996b; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Fetter, 1993; Tansky,
1993).
Several other taxonomies of OCB-like behaviors have been
proposed and operationalized (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993;
Morrison, 1994; Van Dyne et al., 1994); however, the behavioral
domains of these taxonomies overlap with each other and with
Organ’s (1988) OCB domain in varying degrees (Coleman &
Borman, 2000). For example, Van Dyne et al.’s (1994) OCB
framework includes social participation, which overlaps with al-
truism and courtesy; loyalty, which overlaps with sportsmanship
and a bit of civic virtue; and obedience, which overlaps with civic
virtue and conscientiousness. The final dimension, functional par-
ticipation, does not overlap with any of Organ’s dimensions, but it
is very similar to Coleman and Borman’s notion of job–task
citizenship performance.
Morrison (1994) offered another OCB framework. Her altruism
dimension overlaps with Organ’s (1988) altruism and courtesy
dimensions. Her conceptualization of conscientiousness is a bit
narrower than Organ’s. She also presented sportsmanship and
involvement dimensions, the latter of which include components
of Organ’s sportsmanship and civic virtue dimensions. The last
dimension, “keeping up with changes,” overlaps with Organ’s
civic virtue and conscientiousness dimensions.
As a final example, Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) mea-
sured two dimensions of contextual performance by asking super-
visors to rate employees on how likely they were to engage in
certain behaviors. The first dimension, interpersonal facilitation,
overlaps with Organ’s (1988) altruism and courtesy dimensions,
54 LEPINE, EREZ, AND JOHNSON
Morrison’s (1994) altruism dimension, and Van Dyne et al.’s
(1994) social participation dimension. The second dimension, job
dedication, includes elements of Organ’s sportsmanship, civic
virtue, and conscientiousness dimensions. In addition, job dedica-
tion includes elements pertaining to persistence in completing
one’s own job or task. This last element is similar to Van Dyne et
al.’s (1994) functional participation and Coleman and Borman’s
(2000) job–task citizenship performance.
Perhaps in recognition that the behavioral elements of OCB
overlap with each other (Coleman & Borman, 2000; Motowidlo,
2000; Organ, 1997), scholars have begun to consider whether the
elements should be combined into conceptually distinct subgroups.
Williams and Anderson (1991), for example, suggested that orga-
nizational citizenship behavior directed toward individuals (OCBI)
is distinct from organizational citizenship behavior directed toward
the organization (OCBO). Altruism and courtesy are behaviors that
fit in the former category, whereas sportsmanship, civic virtue, and
conscientiousness fit in the latter category.
In a similar manner, Coleman and Borman (2000) noted that
there has been a proliferation of behavioral elements that fit the
general definition of OCB, but scholars have not conducted re-
search aimed at identifying the extent to which these behaviors
represent broader underlying constructs. To address this issue,
Coleman and Borman used similarity data generated through con-
tent sorting of 27 citizenship behaviors and analyzed these data
using exploratory factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, and
cluster analysis. Consistent with Williams and Anderson (1991),
the results of these analyses suggested categories of behaviors that
vary with respect to the behaviors’ beneficiary. Their interpersonal
citizenship performance dimension refers to behavior that benefits
other organizational members and includes Organ’s (1988) altru-
ism and courtesy dimensions and, thus, is similar to OCBI. Their
organizational citizenship performance dimension refers to behav-
ior that benefits the organization and includes Organ’s sportsman-
ship, civic virtue, and conscientiousness dimensions and, thus, is
similar to OCBO. Their third dimension, called job–task citizen-
ship performance, refers to behavior that reflects extra effort and
persistence on the job, dedication to the job, and the desire to
maximize one’s own job performance. Although this latter dimen-
sion seems to be outside the scope of Organ’s notion of OCB, it is
quite similar to the functional participation (Van Dyne et al., 1994)
and job dedication (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) dimensions.
As the previous paragraphs suggest, the literature on OCB and
related concepts is fairly diverse, with respect to both the nature of
the behavioral dimensions studied and perhaps more so the jargon
used by scholars to label the dimensions. By a wide margin,
however, Organ’s (1988) five-dimension framework has been the
subject of the greatest amount of empirical research for at least
three reasons. First, Organ’s framework has the longest history,
and he and his colleagues have been very prolific with respect to
publishing OCB articles and book chapters. Second, Podsakoff and
his colleagues provided the field with a sound measure of Organ’s
five dimensions (Podsakoff et al., 1990), and they conducted
several excellent empirical studies that included this measure (e.g.,
Podsakoff et al., 1996b). Finally, OCB scholars generally assume
that over the long run, the behavioral dimensions are beneficial
across situations and organizations (Organ, 1997). As a result,
OCB researchers typically measure all or most of the dimensions
in the same way across studies. Other behavioral frameworks have
not been used as often, and even when there are several studies,
there is less consistency with respect to the specific behaviors
studied. For example, contextual performance scholars generally
take a job analytic approach to identifying and measuring impor-
tant job-relevant behavior. Accordingly, they tend to use instru-
ments that measure specific contextual behaviors identified by
subject matter experts as making a positive (or a negative) contri-
bution to the organization in a specific setting or job. As a result,
the contextual behaviors studied and the instruments used to mea-
sure the behaviors may be more idiosyncratic than studies framed
in terms of OCB.
Questions About the Definition and
Dimensionality of OCB
Schwab (1980) defined construct validity as “the correspon-
dence between a construct (conceptual definition of a variable) and
the operational procedure to measure or manipulate that construct”
(p. 6). Construct validity, therefore, requires a definition that
clearly specifies what a measure of it should and should not reflect
and, thus, should also convey information about its dimensionality.
Information about the way the dimensions relate to the overall
construct is also critically important because the results of model
testing vary a great deal depending on the way this relationship is
represented (Law & Wong, 1999). Misspecification of this rela-
tionship increases the risk of making errors when parameter esti-
mates and tests of significance are being interpreted. Law et al.
(1998) suggested that scholars have not adequately defined OCB
with respect to its dimensions. In their article, Law et al. also
described several ways by which the dimensions could relate to the
overall construct of OCB.
If OCB conformed to a “latent” model, each dimension would
be a manifestation of OCB, and measures of the dimensions would
include some variance reflecting OCB, other systematic variance
not related to OCB, and error variance. The causal arrow in this
model would be from OCB to the dimensions, and therefore, OCB
would be a latent variable that partially causes these dimensions.
Law et al. (1998) used general cognitive ability, or g, as an
example of a latent construct because g is thought to be a cause of
scores on tests of more specific abilities. Motowidlo (2000) sug-
gested that if OCB were a latent construct, it would be similar to
a personality construct. That is, OCB would be like a trait that
causes the behaviors that are reflected in the dimensions. To our
knowledge, scholars have not explicitly taken this approach in
defining OCB with respect to its dimensions. However, Organ
(1997) seemed to imply this perspective when he suggested that
satisfaction would affect “people’s willingness to help colleagues
and work associates and their disposition to cooperate in varied
and mundane forms to maintain organized structures that govern
work” (p. 92).
If OCB conformed to an “aggregate” model, OCB would be
formed as a mathematical function of the dimensions. According
to this perspective, each of the dimensions would be part of the
OCB construct. OCB would exist to the extent that systematic
variance from each dimension (common as well as specific) would
be captured and added (or perhaps multiplied) together. From this
perspective, the causal arrows (although they are not truly causal
here) can be thought of as originating from the dimension and
pointing toward the OCB construct. Law et al. (1998) used the
 DIMENSIONALITY OF OCB
example of job satisfaction as an aggregate construct because job
satisfaction can be thought of as a sum of scores on instruments
measuring satisfaction with pay, satisfaction with coworkers, sat-
isfaction with supervision, and so forth.
Motowidlo (2000) recently pointed out that contextual perfor-
mance is a clear example of an aggregate multidimensional con-
struct. He and his colleagues (e.g., Motowidlo et al., 1997) defined
job performance as the aggregated value to the organization of the
behavioral episodes performed by individuals over time that have
positive or negative consequences for the organization. Contextual
performance, in turn, is defined as the aggregated value to the
organization of all the behavioral episodes that have effects on the
social, organizational, and psychological context of the organiza-
tion’s technical core.
Many OCB scholars view the behavioral dimensions as being
related (e.g., somewhat discretionary behaviors intended as posi-
tive contributions to the organization) but distinct (e.g., the most
proximal beneficiary of the behaviors differs). Consistent with this
viewpoint, scores on measures of the OCB dimensions should
reflect common variance as well as specific variance, and as we
pointed out previously, the partitioning of variance in this way is
consistent with an aggregate definition of OCB. Indeed, many
OCB scholars have combined scores on the behavioral dimensions
into a composite score (e.g., Allen & Rush, 1998; Chen, Hui, &
Sego, 1998; Deckop, Mangel, & Cirka, 1999; Hui, Law, & Chen,
1999; Netemeyer, Boles, McKee, & McMurrian, 1997). However,
the creation of OCB composites has not been guided by theory or
construct definition. Instead, researchers created these composites
because they recognized that the behavioral dimensions of OCB
covary rather strongly and that combining the scores makes sense
with respect to promoting parsimony.
Of course, there is the possibility that OCB is not really a
construct at all but instead a useful label for sets of behaviors that
conceptually belong together (Motowidlo, 2000). This approach
seems to have been used in developing early OCB scales. Smith et
al. (1983), for example, began with the definition of OCB and
asked managers to identify instances of behavior that fit the
definition. The two subsequent dimensions were generated empir-
ically using factor analysis. OCB as a label may also be implied by
those who state hypotheses in terms of OCB and draw inferences
in terms of OCB in the discussion but conduct tests of the hypoth-
eses by using measures of individual dimensions (e.g., Konovsky
& Organ, 1996; Podsakoff, Niehoff, et al., 1993).
Finally, there are other studies that consider a specific OCB
dimension in isolation. This research generally acknowledges the
more common concept of OCB; however, the focus is on devel-
oping a better understanding of a behavior that is thought to be
important in a specific work setting. LePine and Van Dyne (1998,
2001a, 2001b; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), for example, have
published several articles on specific types of OCB-like behavior.
They have studied helping, which is similar to the altruism dimen-
sion of OCB and the interpersonal facilitation dimension of con-
textual performance. They have also studied voice, which is sim-
ilar to the civic virtue dimension of OCB, although voice is more
about providing suggestions for change rather than keeping abreast
of change. The primary focus of their research to date has been to
distinguish voice from cooperative forms of OCB and from task
performance.
55
Research Questions
Our intent in pointing out deficiencies in OCB theory and
research is not to suggest that the results of past studies of OCB
should be written off. Indeed, we believe that the existing literature
base may be very helpful in guiding the development of OCB
theory. This belief is consistent with that of Schwab (1980), who
described how the results of empirical studies often lead scholars
to modify measures of constructs and construct definitions. In fact,
Schwab explicitly suggested that all of these modifications are a
natural part of the construct validity “process.” Because a large
number of studies have separately considered the dimensions of
OCB, for example, it is possible to examine relationships among
dimensions as well as relationships between a common set of
predictors and the different dimensions. It certainly is not optimal
to begin with data and then infer a construct definition; however,
when construct definitions are assumed or ill specified, it is pos-
sible to examine empirical relationships in an effort to infer con-
struct meaning post hoc (Schwab, 1980, p. 12). This was our focus
in the present study.
We suggest that if the behavioral dimensions covary only mod-
erately and if there are clear differences between dimensions with
respect to relationships in the broader nomological network, then
it may be appropriate to draw inferences about the behavioral
dimensions as if they were separate constructs. If this is the case,
the existing dimensions may also be thought of as deficient indi-
cators of OCB, and accordingly, inferences about OCB should be
made only after theory is developed that states how the dimensions
combine together as in the aggregate model. However, if the
relationships between dimensions approach the magnitude of typ-
ical reliabilities and if there are no differences between dimensions
with respect to the relationships with a common set of correlates,
then it may be that OCB (at least as conceptualized by Organ,
1988) should be thought of as a latent construct. If this is the case,
then the behavioral dimensions should be thought of as imperfect
indicators of OCB and treated as such. Drawing inferences about
OCB from a score on a single dimension in this case may be
problematic to the extent that contamination and unreliability are
present. Just as important, the tendency to provide substantive post
hoc explanations for differences in findings across dimensions
should be avoided (e.g., Findley, 1995; MacKenzie et al., 1991;
Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998;
Moorman et al., 1993; Tansky, 1993; VanYperen, van den Berh, &
Willering, 1999). If the dimensions of OCB are simply reflections
of the same underlying construct, the true underlying explanation
for differential relationships across dimensions in studies is likely
to be sampling error, or perhaps differences in the extent to which
the dimensions are imperfect indicators of OCB and not anything
substantive. Organ (1994), for example, observed that the empir-
ical literature suggests that satisfaction may be more strongly
related to the altruism dimension of OCB than to the conscien-
tiousness dimension of OCB. He then offered a theoretical expla-
nation for this relationship. He specifically suggested that the
personality trait of conscientiousness likely suppresses the rela-
tionship between satisfaction and conscientiousness as a form of
OCB. He suggested that the reason for this suppression effect is
that trait conscientiousness has a direct positive effect on consci-
entiousness OCB and a negative effect on satisfaction. We suggest
that if OCB is a latent construct and if the differences in relation-
56 LEPINE, EREZ, AND JOHNSON
ships between dimensions are due to statistical artifacts, attempts
to provide a theoretical explanation for these differences are un-
necessary. In fact, these post hoc explanations probably hold back
the field to the extent that scholars expend resources by empiri-
cally assessing them.
Summary and a Caveat
Although research on OCB has nearly a 20-year history, there is
ambiguity concerning the definition of OCB and how OCB should
be measured. In this study, we attempted to use the existing body
of research on OCB to provide some insight into how scholars
have implicitly defined OCB with respect to its dimensions. Our
hope is that this insight will translate into implications for how
OCB ought to be defined and measured in future theoretical and
empirical efforts. Next, we describe how we used meta-analytic
techniques to assess (a) the relationships among behavioral dimen-
sions of OCB and (b) the relationships between the behavioral
dimensions and a common set of predictors. Before moving on,
however, we need to address an additional issue. We specifically
need to explain why we focused on research that uses the OCB
dimensions as suggested by Organ (1988) and not others.
It is very difficult to say much about how the dimensions from
different behavioral frameworks relate to one another in a con-
struct validity sense because scholars have not assessed the extent
to which newly developed constructs are distinct from similar
constructs of other existing behavioral frameworks. In fact, be-
cause there are no studies that include similar constructs from
alternative frameworks (e.g., sportsmanship and loyalty), we sim-
ply cannot tell how highly the constructs relate to one another.
Thus, because Organ’s (1988) OCB framework is the only one that
has been treated consistently over a fairly large number of studies,
and because it is highly difficult to confidently map behavioral
elements from another framework onto Organ’s five dimensions,
we addressed our research questions by using studies grounded in
his framework.
Method
We assessed our questions regarding the dimensionality of OCB first by
conducting a comprehensive literature search and then by applying an
appropriate method of meta-analysis.
Literature Search
We began our literature search by collecting the articles reviewed in
Organ and Ryan’s (1995) OCB meta-analysis. We then conducted a search
of the PsycINFO database for the years 1983 to 1999 to ensure that we had
a comprehensive set of published articles. For this search, we used key-
words such as organizational citizenship behavior, contextual perfor-
mance, organizational spontaneity, prosocial organizational behavior, and
extra-role behavior. We also searched dissertation abstracts for the same
key phrases. We then contacted 23 authors who have published widely in
this area and asked them for unpublished manuscripts or raw data. Finally,
we manually searched the references in all of these articles for studies that
we may have missed. Overall, this search yielded 133 empirical articles
(including 12 dissertations). Twenty of these studies did not include
information that could be coded, and they were immediately eliminated
from further consideration. For example, there were reports of factor
analyses that included only factor loadings (e.g., Becker & Randall, 1994).
There were also studies on constructs that used citizenship terminology and
theory but did not include measures of OCB that we could include in our
meta-analyses. For example, Eastman (1994) focused on attributions for
OCB, and Crant (1995) validated a proactive personality scale.
For each of the 113 remaining studies, we listed the relevant OCB
variables along with their correlates. Only 31 of these studies reported
relationships among at least two of the five dimensions under consideration
here, and 12 of these studies included relationships among all five dimen-
sions. There are many labels for the behavioral dimensions of OCB, and
when possible, we examined items to ensure that they corresponded to
dimension definitions. We excluded from our analysis effects for which, in
our judgment, the items overlapped across dimensions. For example, Smith
et al.’s (1983) altruism scale overlaps with Organ’s (1988) notion of
altruism and courtesy. Likewise, although Smith et al.’s generalized com-
pliance is similar to conscientiousness, several items overlap with Organ’s
definition of civic virtue.
We decided a priori to consider a correlate in the meta-analysis if it was
related to each of the five dimensions in at least 3 studies. Consequently,
the correlates that we considered in this study were satisfaction, organiza-
tional commitment, fairness, leader support, and conscientiousness. When
a correlate was assessed with multiple measures, we used Hunter and
Schmidt’s (1990, pp. 451– 463) recommendation for conceptual replica-
tion. That is, when the measures were highly related, we formed a com-
posite measure using the average of the correlations. In addition to the 31
studies noted above, there were 6 studies that reported a relationship
between a single dimension of organizational citizenship and at least one of
the correlates. Thus, our study considered effect sizes from a total of 37
studies. These studies included 395 effect sizes from a total sample size
of 16,330.
Before continuing, we note that of the remaining 76 studies, 26 included
a measure of overall organizational citizenship (operationalized as some
composite of the dimensions of OCB). Six other studies considered OCBI
(altruism and courtesy) and OCBO (sportsmanship, civic virtue, and con-
scientiousness) composites, and 14 other studies considered altruism and
generalized compliance as operationalized by Smith et al. (1983). Most of
the remaining studies considered constructs related to OCB, but they did
not correspond precisely to the five dimensions considered here. For
example, several studies considered the typology of citizenship proposed
by Van Dyne et al. (1994; social participation, loyalty, obedience, and
functional participation), whereas others considered isolated behaviors
such as voice and helping (e.g., LePine & Van Dyne, 1998, 2001b; Van
Dyne & LePine, 1998).
Meta-Analysis
The purpose of meta-analysis is to combine information from various
studies to provide information about relationships of interest. In combining
information from independent but similar studies, meta-analysis “borrows
power” from multiple studies to improve on parameter estimates that are
obtained from a single study (Erez, Bloom, & Wells, 1996). As such,
meta-analysis serves as a powerful tool to model relationships between
variables of interest that goes beyond those estimates that are obtained
from one sample or just a few samples.
One of the questions that this study tries to answer is whether the various
dimensions of OCB are differentially related to other variables of interest
(e.g., job satisfaction). To answer this question, a model that can test the
significance of differences in relationships should be used. The random
effects (RE) method of meta-analysis provides this type of tool by allowing
us to expressly model and test for significant differential relationships
between the OCB dimensions and a predictor variable. The RE approach,
which parallels regression, uses the entire data set (instead of breaking it
into several homogeneous data sets) to explicitly model potential moder-
ators and test for their significance.
The general RE meta-analysis model follows the form of ri ! ! " ui "
ei. In this model, ri represents the observed correlation, ! is analogous to
 DIMENSIONALITY OF OCB
the grand mean in an analysis of variance and represents the overall
population value, ui is the effect of between-study differences on the
correlation coefficient of study i, and ei is the within-studies error. The
three parameters that are estimated are !, the grand-mean correlation; V,
the error variance of the eis; and " 2, the between-studies variance of the uis.
A Cochran chi-square test (Cochran, 1937) is used to explicitly assess the
assumption that all studies are homogeneous with respect to effect size
(i.e., H0: between-studies variance is zero; " 2 ! 0). Study characteristics
that cause variation in population values are represented by the between-
studies variance term " 2, and if these characteristics are theoretically
important, they can be modeled. This is accomplished by using a covariates
model that follows the form of ! ! WiT#. In this model, the Wis represent
the different characteristics of the studies that are under investigation as
moderators (the superscript T indicates that the matrix of indicator char-
acteristics is transposed). The # represents the estimated effect size of each
Wi characteristic.
Because raw correlations come from a skewed distribution, we per-
formed Hotelling’s and Fisher’s z transformations before conducting any
meta-analyses (see Erez et al., 1996, for details). Transforming the corre-
lations normalizes their distribution and stabilizes their variance, which
allowed us to use maximum-likelihood estimation procedures to analyze
the data (Bickel & Doksum, 1977). The transformed correlations follow
approximately a normal distribution with mean $ and a known stable error
variance of 1/(n # 3) (Bobko, 1995). The meta-analyses of the transformed
correlations were then conducted using Hierarchical Linear Modeling
(HLM) software (Byrk, Raudenbush, & Congdon, 1996). The transformed
correlations are entered into HLM as a “variance known” problem struc-
ture. Although there are many different ways to conduct an RE meta-
analysis (e.g., Erez et al., 1996; Raudenbush, 1994; Wagner & LePine,
1999), the HLM software includes convenient features that allow research-
ers to assess the relative fit of alternative models.
In the first set of analyses, an unconditional model (without covariates)
was assessed for each relationship among the OCB dimensions. These
analyses were conducted to estimate the effect sizes for the relationships
among the OCB dimensions at the population level (grand-mean $). The
grand-mean $s were then back-transformed into normal correlations (!s)
using the formula recommended by Erez et al. (1996, p. 289). In addition,
the analyses produced estimates of the variance across effect sizes (" 2) for
each relationship and a chi-square that tested the hypothesis that this
variance was zero (" 2 ! 0). A significant chi-square indicates the presence
of variability in the effect sizes that could potentially be explained by
theoretically relevant moderators (e.g., the proportion of female partici-
pants in the study samples, type of job or task). Although the information
needed to assess these types of moderators was often not provided in the
original studies, we report the " 2 and chi-square statistics for the sake of
completeness and in the hope that scholars begin to more completely
describe their sample and setting in the future.
In the second set of analyses, we examined relationships between OCB
dimensions and predictors that have been considered in empirical studies of
OCB. These analyses were conducted in two stages. In the first stage, the
transformed correlations representing the relationship between a predictor
(e.g., job satisfaction) and all the OCB dimensions were submitted to a
single unconditional model. The purpose of this analysis was to examine
whether there was variation in the effect sizes among the different OCB
dimensions and the variable of interest. As with the previous analysis, the
variance of the effect sizes (" 2) was evaluated using the chi-square test of
significance. If the effect sizes did not differ significantly from one
another, there would be no variance in the correlations to be explained by
the dimensions of OCB. This would mean that the data do not support
distinctions among the OCB dimensions with respect to relationships with
the other variable of interest (e.g., job satisfaction). The grand-mean
correlation (!), in this case, would represent the overall relationship be-
tween all the dimensions combined (which could be thought of as overall
OCB as measured by somewhat imperfect dimensional indicators) and the
57
variable of interest included in that particular model (e.g., job satisfaction).
A statistically significant chi-square, in contrast, would indicate that there
is variation in the magnitudes of the effect sizes. At this point, we would
use the second stage of this analysis and test whether the dimensions of
OCB moderated the relationship between the grand-mean correlation (!)
and the predictor variable of interest. Stated somewhat differently, we
would assess the extent to which the dimensions of OCB explained
variability in the magnitudes of the effect sizes. In a nomological network
sense, such a finding would help support the assertion that the dimensions
are distinct.
To conduct this analysis, we dummy coded the dimensions of OCB, and
as in an ordinary regression analysis, the parameter estimates capture the
differences in effects between the groups that are coded 1 and a reference
group that is coded 0. We used four dummy variables to capture the five
dimensions, and the altruism dimension served as the reference group. A
significant t test for a regression coefficient implies that a specific dimen-
sion (e.g., sportsmanship) has a correlation with the variable of interest
(e.g., job satisfaction) that is different from the correlation of the base
group (e.g., altruism) with this variable of interest.
Results
Relationships Among Dimensions
In the first analysis, we estimated the magnitude of the relation-
ships among the OCB dimensions at the population level. We
analyzed uncorrected correlations and correlations corrected for
unreliability of both the predictor and the criterion. We corrected
correlations for unreliability before we transformed them to nor-
malize their distributions. The HLM program produced the esti-
mated population correlation (!), the standard error of this corre-
lation (SE), the between-studies variance (" 2), and the chi-square
test for the significance of this variance. Table 1 shows the
uncorrected (r) and corrected (rc) population correlations among
dimensions as well as the 95% confidence intervals around the
population correlations. The confidence intervals were created by
adding $1.96 SE to the population correlations.
As Table 1 shows, all but one of the corrected correlation
estimates (r ! .40 for sportsmanship and civic virtue) were strong.
In addition, most of the corrected correlations approached the
magnitude of acceptable internal consistency reliability (average
rc ! .67). In fact, all but two of the 95% confidence intervals (the
correlations for sportsmanship and civic virtue and for sportsman-
ship and conscientiousness) included values that exceeded .70, the
generally accepted minimum value for internal consistency reli-
ability (Nunnally, 1978). Thus, with the possible exception of
sportsmanship, it appears that the behavioral dimensions were
highly related to one another and that the relationships closely
approached or exceeded the typical levels of reliability.
We do note that for each relationship, the " 2 was statistically
significant, which suggests that the correlations among the OCB
dimensions may not be homogeneous. It certainly would be inter-
esting to identify theoretically relevant moderators that might
explain this variability. However, this type of analysis was not
feasible because the studies did not consistently include enough of
the needed information (e.g., percentage of female participants in
the sample, interdependence of the tasks, task complexity).
Relationships With Predictors
In the second analysis, we assessed whether the OCB dimen-
sions were related differentially to predictors that have been used
58 LEPINE, EREZ, AND JOHNSON

Table 1
Population Correlations Among Organizational Citizenship Behavior Dimensions

Dimension 1 2 3 4 5

1. Altruism —
2. Civic virtue —
r (95% CI) .58 (.52–.63)
rc (95% CI) .75 (.66–.83)
K (N) 16 (5,160)
"2 .023**
3. Conscientiousness —
r (95% CI) .58 (.52–.63) .49 (.41–.57)
rc (95% CI) .72 (.63–.79) .64 (.52–.74)
K (N) 26 (7,356) 15 (4,901)
"2 .037** .035**
4. Courtesy —
r (95% CI) .67 (.62–.72) .54 (.49–.58) .57 (.51–.63)
rc (95% CI) .87 (.67–.95) .68 (.62–.74) .70 (.62–.77)
K (N) 15 (5,085) 15 (5,085) 15 (5,086)
"2 .031** .012** .023**
5. Sportsmanship —
r (95% CI) .47 (.39–.55) .34 (.25–.42) .45 (.38–.50) .58 (.50–.65)
rc (95% CI) .68 (.33–.87) .40 (.24–.54) .55 (.48–.61) .70 (.60–.78)
K (N) 18 (5,718) 20 (6,694) 17 (5,423) 15 (5,085)
"2 .048** .045** .019** .046**

Note. r ! uncorrected population correlation; 95% CI ! 95% confidence interval around the population
correlation; rc ! population correlation corrected for unreliability; K ! number of studies; N ! total sample size;
" 2 ! between-studies variance.
** p % .01.

most often in the literature. Table 2 shows the results of the
unconditional RE models. The coefficients in columns 2 and 3 in
Table 2 can be thought of as the relationships (uncorrected and
corrected for attenuation due to unreliability) between each pre-
dictor (i.e., satisfaction, commitment, fairness, leader support, and
conscientiousness) and overall OCB. As shown in Table 2, the
corrected population estimates ranged from .20 for commitment to
.32 for leader support. We note that these effect sizes are slightly
smaller than those reported by Organ and Ryan (1995) in their
meta-analysis of the altruism and generalized compliance dimen-
sions of OCB. However, this difference is understandable given
our consideration of dimensional measures that are narrower in
breadth than those considered by Organ and Ryan.
The right-hand column of Table 2 shows that for all the predic-
tors, the " 2 was statistically significant, suggesting situational
specificity. In other words, for each predictor variable of interest
(i.e., satisfaction, commitment, fairness, leader support, and con-
scientiousness), relationships with OCB were not the same across
the set of study effect sizes. This result, of course, indicates the
potential existence of moderators.
We investigated whether the OCB dimensions explained any of
the variance in these relationships by assessing the effects of the
four dummy-coded variables that captured the five OCB dimen-
sions. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3 and indicate
no significant effects for the dimensions for any predictor vari-
able.1 Overall, our results suggest that the relationship between the
predictors (i.e., satisfaction, commitment, fairness, leader support,
and conscientiousness) and OCB does not depend on how OCB is
behaviorally defined.
An Alternative Framework
As we mentioned earlier, some researchers have proposed mod-
els of OCB that include behavioral dimensions that are somewhat
broader than those included in Organ’s (1988) framework. For
example, Coleman and Borman’s (2000) interpersonal citizenship
performance dimension includes altruism and courtesy elements,
and their organizational citizenship performance dimension in-
cludes sportsmanship, civic virtue, and conscientiousness ele-
ments. These broader dimensions are consistent with those pro-
posed by Williams and Anderson (1991), who believe that it is
important to distinguish OCB with respect to the target of the
behavior. They specifically distinguished OCBI (altruism and
courtesy) from OCBO (sportsmanship, civic virtue, and conscien-
tiousness). We thought that perhaps these broader dimensions
might explain the variability between studies in the predictor–
criterion relationships. Accordingly, we created a dummy variable
to capture the OCBI versus OCBO distinction and used it in
another RE meta-analysis.
Table 4 presents the results of this analysis and shows that the
relationships with OCBI were not significantly different than those
with OCBO for any of the predictor variables. Thus, here again,
there does not seem to be any evidence of differential relationships
with predictors across dimensions of OCB.
1
The same multiple comparison analyses were conducted using the
other four dimensions as the base group. Because the results of these
comparisons were substantively identical to those using altruism as the
base group (i.e., no variance was explained by the set of dummy codes),
they are not reported here.
 DIMENSIONALITY OF OCB 59

Table 2
Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Satisfaction, Commitment,
Fairness, Leader Support, and Conscientiousness

Variable r (95% CI) rc (95% CI) Kd, Kc, N "2

Satisfaction .20 (.18–.22) .24 (.22–.26) 22, 72, 7,100 .003**

Commitment .17 (.15–.20) .20 (.17–.24) 17, 54, 5,133 .006**
Fairness .20 (.17–.22) .23 (.20–.26) 9, 40, 1,975 .003**
Leader support .25 (.22–.28) .32 (.27–.37) 10, 41, 4,349 .007**
Conscientiousness .19 (.12–.26) .23 (.32–.44) 3, 15, 848 .015**

Note. r ! uncorrected population correlation; 95% CI ! 95% confidence interval around the population
correlation; rc ! population correlation corrected for unreliability; Kd ! number of different studies; Kc !
number of correlations; N ! total sample size; " 2 ! between-studies variance.
** p % .01.

Contrasting Overall OCB With Dimensional Measures
In our literature search, we found 19 additional studies with
correlations between predictors and a measure of overall OCB
(typically formed by averaging items across dimensions). The
existence of these effect sizes allowed us to test for significant
differences in predictive validity between overall measures of
OCB and measures of OCB dimensions (dimensional measures).
Dummy coding was used to extract these differences, with the
overall measure of OCB coded as the reference group. A positive
significant difference between the dimensional measure of OCB
and the measure of overall OCB means that measuring OCB, as a
specific behavioral dimension, increases predictive validity. In
contrast, if there is no difference or if the difference is negative,

Table 3
Conditional Model Estimates for Differences Between the Organizational
Citizenship Behavior Dimensions

Uncorrected Corrected
Fixed effect coefficient coefficient

Satisfaction (Kd ! 22, Kc ! 72, N ! 7,100)

Intercept (altruism) .19** .23**
Civic virtue #.01 .01
Conscientiousness .00 .00
Courtesy .01 .02
Sportsmanship .02 .03
Commitment (Kd ! 17, Kc ! 54, N ! 5,133)
Intercept (altruism) .18** .21**
Civic virtue .00 .03
Conscientiousness .01 .01
Courtesy #.05 #.06
Sportsmanship #.03 #.04
Fairness (Kd ! 9, Kc ! 40, N ! 1,975)
Intercept (altruism) .19** .23**
Civic virtue #.02 #.02
Conscientiousness #.02 #.02
Courtesy .03 .02
Sportsmanship .03 .03
Leader support (Kd ! 10, Kc ! 41, N ! 4,349)
Intercept (altruism) .27** .35**
Civic virtue #.08 #.08
Conscientiousness #.02 #.03
Courtesy #.01 #.02
Sportsmanship #.01 #.02
Conscientiousness (Kd ! 3, Kc ! 15, N ! 848)
Intercept (altruism) .23* .29*
Civic virtue .02 .02
Conscientiousness #.06 #.09
Courtesy #.06 #.08
Sportsmanship #.11 #.14

Note. Altruism was the base category. All other coefficients represent the difference between each variable and
the altruism base group. Kd ! number of different studies; Kc ! number of correlations; N ! total sample size.
* p % .05. ** p % .01.
60 LEPINE, EREZ, AND JOHNSON

Table 4
Conditional Model Estimates for Differences Between the OCBI and OCBO Dimensions

Uncorrected Corrected
Fixed effect coefficient coefficient

Satisfaction (Kd ! 22, Kc ! 72, N ! 7,100)

Intercept (OCBI) .20** .24**
OCBO .00 .01
Commitment (Kd ! 17, Kc ! 54, N ! 5,133)
Intercept (OCBI) .19** .21**
OCBO #.02 #.02
Fairness (Kd ! 9, Kc ! 40, N ! 1,975)
Intercept (OCBI) .19** .22**
OCBO .02 .02
Leader support (Kd ! 10, Kc ! 41, N ! 4,349)
Intercept (OCBI) .24** .30**
OCBO .03 .03
Conscientiousness (Kd ! 3, Kc ! 15, N ! 848)
Intercept (OCBI) .18** .22**
OCBO .02 .03

Note. Organizational citizenship behavior directed toward individuals (OCBI) was the base category. The
organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the organization (OCBO) coefficients represent the differ-
ences between the OCBI and OCBO groups. Kd ! number of different studies; Kc ! number of correlations;
N ! total sample size.
** p % .01.

there is no advantage or there is a disadvantage in measuring statistically significant. Whereas the uncorrected correlation be-
specific OCB dimensions. tween commitment and overall OCB was .27, the correlation for
The results of these comparisons are reported in Table 5 and the courtesy dimension was .13, and the correlation for the sports-
showed only one statistically significant difference between the manship dimension was .15. The correlations with commitment
overall measure and dimensional measures. This difference was in and the other dimensional measures were also lower than the
the relationship with commitment, and the direction of this effect correlation for the overall measure; however, these differences
was negative. We explored which specific dimensions were the were not statistically significant.2 The dimensional measure
cause of this effect and found only two differences that were dummy-coded coefficients were also negative (but not statistically
significant) when the predictor was satisfaction, fairness, and
leader support. Overall, it appears that predictive relationships
Table 5 with the broader OCB criterion were as good as, or superior to,
Conditional Model Estimates for Differences Between Studies those with the narrower dimensional criteria.
Measuring Overall Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
and Studies Measuring OCB Dimensions
Discussion
Uncorrected Corrected
Fixed effect coefficient coefficient Kd, Kc, N Although scholars suggest that OCB is composed of conceptu-
ally distinct behavioral dimensions, we have shown that these
Satisfaction
Overall OCB .22** .31** 10, 10, 9,248 dimensions have yet to be distinguished from one another in the
Dimensions OCB #.05 #.07 22, 72, 7,100 empirical literature beyond factor analysis. The results of our
Commitment analyses suggest that most of the dimensions of OCB, at least those
Overall OCB .27** .32** 9, 9, 2,228 conceptualized by Organ (1988), are highly related to one another
Dimensions OCB #.10* #.12* 17, 54, 5,133
Fairness
and that there are no apparent differences in relationships with the
Overall OCB .24** .31** 8, 8, 8,154 most popular set of predictors.
Dimensions OCB #.05 #.08 9, 40, 1,975
Leader support
Overall OCB .30** .41** 2, 2, 6,961 OCB as a Latent Construct
Dimensions OCB #.05 #.09 10, 41, 4,349
Conscientiousness Overall, our results seem to be consistent with the notion that the
Overall OCB .11** .13** 4, 4, 619 five dimensions of OCB are not much more than equivalent
Dimensions OCB .08 .10 3, 15, 848

Note. Overall OCB conveys the correlation for studies measured with an
overall OCB measure. Dimensions OCB conveys how much the dimen-
sional measure adds to or subtracts from the correlations using overall
OCB measures. Kd ! number of different studies; Kc ! number of
correlations; N ! total sample size.
* p % .05. ** p % .01.
2
The same type of analyses to find differences between the overall
measure of OCB and the unique dimensions were conducted for all the
other predictors (i.e., satisfaction, fairness, leader support, and conscien-
tiousness). However, because none of the differences were significant, they
are not reported here.
 DIMENSIONALITY OF OCB
indicators of OCB. From a theoretical standpoint, these results
suggest that scholars should begin to explicitly think of Organ’s
(1988) OCB as a latent construct. Given that the five dimensions
seem to be behavioral manifestations of positive cooperativeness
at work, perhaps this latent OCB construct should be redefined as
a general tendency to be cooperative and helpful in organizational
settings (Motowidlo, 2000; Organ, 1997). We note that this con-
ceptualization is somewhat consistent with the behavioral elements
included in the affiliative–promotive dimension of extrarole be-
havior as proposed by Van Dyne et al. (1995).
From a research method standpoint, a latent definition of OCB
means that Organ’s (1988) five dimensions should be thought of as
somewhat imperfect indicators of the same underlying construct.
Consistent with this idea, when OCB is the focal construct of
interest, scholars should avoid focusing on the specific dimensions
of OCB when conducting research and interpreting results. This
would be like interpreting relationships with individual items from
a multi-item measure of a unidimensional construct. Interpreting
differential relationships among indicators is problematic because
observed differences are likely nothing more than sampling error
or a reflection of the relative imperfection inherent in individual
indicators. Measurement and analysis of OCB, as a latent con-
struct, should be commensurate with its status as such (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). A measure of OCB, as a latent construct, should
include items that fully capture the elements implied within the
boundaries of the definition and should not include items that
capture elements outside the boundaries of the definition. How-
ever, there are several possible alternative explanations for our
results, and researchers should examine these explanations before
our findings are used to guide the development of OCB theory and
empirical research.
Correlated method variance. One possible explanation for the
pattern of meta-analytic results is that researchers have measured
the five dimensions with the same instrument and rater (normally
the supervisor) at the same point in time. Correlated method
variance inflates observed relationships between dimensions and
makes it more difficult to uncover differential relationships be-
tween specific predictors across dimensions. As an example, Mo-
towidlo and Van Scotter (1994) found a correlation of .17 between
task and contextual performance using different supervisor raters
to measure these two constructs. Conway (1996), in contrast,
found a correlation of .55 between the two constructs when the
same raters were used to measure the constructs. In a similar
manner, Van Dyne and LePine (1998) found a correlation of .36
between peer-rated helping behavior and supervisor-rated task
performance. However, the correlation between helping behavior
and task performance was .65 when both variables were measured
by the same source (either peers or supervisors). To eliminate
correlated method variance as an explanation for our results,
research needs to be conducted in which the OCB dimensions are
rated using different sources and/or methods. As one reviewer
suggested, the best estimate of the between-dimension relation-
ships might be to measure the dimensions using different methods
but to correct the correlations for unreliability of each method.
Research using this approach may be most important in situations
in which scholars are interested in distinguishing between dimen-
sions with respect to relationships with other variables in the
nomological network. Scholars need to keep in mind that theory
and logic should guide the choice of methods for measuring the
61
different dimensions. For example, peers might be best suited to
rate those behaviors that fit in the domain of interpersonal citizen-
ship performance (or OCBI), whereas supervisors might be best
suited to rate those behaviors that fit in the domains of organiza-
tional citizenship performance (or OCBO) and job–task citizenship
performance.
Inadequate domain of predictors or OCB criteria. The focus
of almost all OCB research to date has been either to distinguish
OCB from task performance or to identify predictors of OCB.
Because the focus has not been on differentiating the behavioral
dimensions from one another, researchers have not invested effort
in identifying predictors with differential relationships. Thus, it is
possible that there are certain unidentified (or not often studied)
variables that differentially predict OCB dimensions. Researchers
should use theory to generate hypotheses that specifically attempt
to identify antecedents that have differential relationships across
dimensions.
A related plausible explanation for our findings is that perhaps
the domain of OCB dimensions is incomplete (Coleman & Bor-
man, 2000). There may be dimensions of OCB that have yet to be
identified but, nevertheless, would have smaller relationships with
other dimensions and would be predicted by a different set of
antecedents. It might be worthwhile to conduct studies aimed at
identifying a broader set of behavioral dimensions that fit the
definition of OCB than the five dimensions proposed by Organ
(1988). Some of these dimensions might include adaptive perfor-
mance (Hesketh & Neal, 1999; LePine, 2001; LePine, Colquitt, &
Erez, 2000), functional participation (e.g., Van Dyne et al., 1994),
personal initiative (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996), voice
behavior (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998, 2001b; Van Dyne & LePine,
1998), and the elements of job dedication related more directly to
the task (e.g., Coleman & Borman, 2000; Van Scotter & Motow-
idlo, 1996).
Low statistical power. Another alternative explanation for our
findings relates to statistical power. Specifically, we may have
failed to find differences in relationships across dimensions be-
cause the number of effect sizes in some of the analyses was too
low to detect the differences. This problem is most relevant to the
analyses with trait conscientiousness (see Table 3) because there
were only 15 effect sizes to meta-analyze. Although the ratio of the
number of effect sizes to the number of variables (the four dimen-
sion dummy-coded variables) was greater than 10:1 for the other
predictors, statistical power is an issue that readers always need to
bear in mind when interpreting results such as ours. Our hope is
that the research we report here triggers the type of additional work
necessary to address this limitation.
OCB as an Aggregate Construct
In light of the preceding discussion, what can we conclude about
the appropriate way to represent OCB? On the one hand, there
seems to be enough evidence to at least consider conceptualizing
OCB as a latent construct. On the other hand, there are limitations
with the existing empirical research, and thus, the evidence is not
such that it can be used as a basis for categorically rejecting other
models as viable options.
In fact, as we described earlier, the definition of OCB has
evolved over time and has become more similar to the definition of
62 LEPINE, EREZ, AND JOHNSON
contextual performance, an aggregate construct. If, indeed, this is
the future direction of the OCB construct, then OCB scholars need
to ensure that measurement is consistent with an aggregate per-
formance definition. This means that OCB scholars should prob-
ably avoid measuring OCB by asking respondents how many
instances of a specific behavior from a standard pool of items are
typically enacted (e.g., counting the number of instances of helping
or obtaining ratings of the frequency with which an employee
helps other employees). Instead, researchers should measure OCB
in a manner that is consistent with how behavioral performance
constructs are measured. That is, they should identify activities
that contribute positively and negatively to the organization (albeit,
the organization’s social and psychological context) and then
obtain ratings of how likely it is that an employee would engage in
those behaviors (e.g., Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scot-
ter & Motowidlo, 1996). The score for OCB would then be some
aggregate of the scores on those activities. One benefit of this
approach is that it helps prevent situations in which a score on
OCB is incongruent with its definition—the value to the organi-
zation of those activities that contribute to the organization’s social
or psychological context. For example, scores for employees on
organizational citizenship as measured (at least in part) by a count
of “helping behaviors” are likely to be low when individuals in a
particular setting work independently, when individuals are uni-
formly competent in their jobs, or when task demands are predict-
able. However, these “low” scores on OCB will be quite mislead-
ing if the employees routinely engage in other activities that do
positively affect the psychological and social context of the orga-
nization (e.g., not complaining about working conditions, suggest-
ing administrative improvements).
A second and related reason that might weigh against an
exclusively latent definition of OCB is that the behavioral
dimensions of OCB seem to be conceptually distinct. Assuming
that there may be different organizationally relevant conse-
quences of these behaviors, it may be appropriate to consider
them individually. For example, it is not difficult to imagine
someone who tends to be very helpful and cooperative toward
others (high altruism) yet at the same time tends to be hesitant
about getting involved in the decisions that affect the organi-
zation (low civic virtue). The former behavior is likely to be
more important to organizations in which members work in
small groups or teams. The latter behavior is likely to be more
important in organizations in which members’ active participa-
tion is critical to the development of effective responses to
competitive threats. Indeed, although there are only a few
studies that have considered consequences of OCB, relation-
ships may differ across dimensions, and some dimensions may
have independent effects on the same outcome (Podsakoff et al.,
2000).
In sum, although we found some evidence to support the
latent definition of OCB, there are reasons to consider the
aggregate model as a viable alternative. Future research should
focus on teasing out the relative advantages and disadvantages
of these two approaches. At the very least, scholars should
explicitly articulate their definition of OCB with respect to the
dimensions and ensure that measurement is consistent with their
definition.
Other Issues
In conducting this study, it became clear to us that there are
several characteristics of OCB research that hinder the systematic
accumulation of knowledge. Perhaps most important, scholars
have introduced many new OCB (or OCB-like) constructs and
measures without adequate construct validity support. In the pool
of 133 studies, we found more than 40 different measures of
behavior that scholars have referred to as OCB or something very
similar (e.g., contextual performance, extrarole behavior). Almost
without exception, however, the authors of these studies did not
empirically evaluate the extent to which the OCB constructs they
introduced were different than or similar to others that already
existed. This shortcoming, together with the fact that full scales
were rarely reported, made it impossible to use relationships with
these newer dimensions in our meta-analysis.
We also note that in the pool of 133 studies, researchers con-
sidered more than 200 different correlates from a wide variety of
different theoretical perspectives. To some extent, this type of
breadth is encouraging because it suggests that OCB researchers
are not overly constrained by a dominant paradigm that hinders the
development of new and useful ways of thinking about OCB. The
downside of this breadth, however, is that there has been less effort
focused on replicating and conducting studies that systematically
extend previous empirical research. The majority of studies of
OCB include correlates that are unique to that particular study.
This is why, in our meta-analysis, we could consider only 5 OCB
correlates. One avenue for future research might be to develop a
meta-theory of OCB that explicitly acknowledges the different
types of correlates. This way, empirical research on OCB might
accumulate in a more systematic fashion.
Summary and Conclusion
On the basis of the meta-analyses reported in this article, it
appears that the relationships among the dimensions of OCB are
generally as high as reliability estimates and that there are no
meaningful differences in relationships with predictors across di-
mensions. Accordingly, the dimensions of OCB as currently op-
erationalized by the majority of scholars perhaps may be best
thought of as imperfect indicators of OCB. Consistent with this
idea, it might be worthwhile to begin explicitly defining OCB as a
latent construct. To date, such a conceptualization has not been
explicitly stated in the literature. We offered potential alternative
explanations for our results. Correlated method variance and in-
complete sets of predictors or criteria stand as plausible explana-
tions. Because the definition of OCB has evolved to be more
consistent with contextual performance (an aggregate construct),
and because there may be practical reasons to separately consider
the behavioral dimensions, we urge scholars to assess these alter-
native perspectives as well. Overall, there needs to be an increase
in the amount of effort focused on developing theory that can
guide OCB measurement and analysis. Such theory should explic-
itly define OCB with respect to its dimensions. We hope that this
article serves as an impetus for such effort.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in one of
the meta-analyses.
 DIMENSIONALITY OF OCB
*Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational
citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a
laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247–260.
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
*Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good
soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.”
Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.
*Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. (1993). Profiles of commitment: An
empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 177–190.
Becker, T. E., & Randall, D. M. (1994). Validation of a measure of
organizational citizenship behavior against an objective behavioral cri-
terion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 160 –167.
Bickel, P. J., & Doksum, K. A. (1977). Mathematical statistics. San
Francisco: Holden-Day.
*Bies, R. J., Martin, C. L., & Brockner, J. (1993). Just laid off, but still a
“good citizen?” Only if the process is fair. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 6, 227–238.
*Blakely, G. L., Fuller, J., & Smith, D. (1996, November). Are chameleons
good citizens? The relationship between self-monitoring and organiza-
tional citizenship behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Southern Management Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bobko, P. (1995). Correlation and regression: Principles and applications
for industrial psychology and management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt &
W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and con-
textual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research.
Human Performance, 10, 99 –109.
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task
performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer perfor-
mance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168 –177.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors.
Academy of Management Review, 11, 710 –725.
Byrk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W., & Congdon, R. T., Jr. (1996). HLM:
Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling with the HLM/2L and
HLM/3L programs. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
*Carson, K. D., & Carson, P. P. (1998). Career commitment, competen-
cies, and citizenship. Journal of Career Assessment, 6, 195–208.
*Chen, X., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational
citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests
of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 922–931.
Cochran, W. G. (1937). Problems arising in the analysis of a series of
similar experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 4(Suppl.),
102–118.
Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying
structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 10, 25– 44.
Conway, J. M. (1996). Additional construct validity evidence for the
task/contextual performance distinction. Human Performance, 9, 309 –
329.
Crant, M. J. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective job
performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 80, 532–537.
*Deckop, J. R., Mangel, R., & Cirka, C. C. (1999). Getting more than you
pay for: Organizational citizenship behavior and pay-for-performance
plans. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 420 – 428.
*Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relationship between attributional charismatic
leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 28, 1652–1669.
*Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader–member exchange quality and effectiveness
63
ratings: The role of subordinate–supervisor conscientiousness similarity.
Group and Organization Management, 23, 189 –216.
Eastman, K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach
to ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 1379 –1391.
Erez, A., Bloom, M. C., & Wells, M. T. (1996). Using random rather than
fixed effects models in meta-analysis: Implications for situational spec-
ificity and validity generalization. Personnel Psychology, 49, 275–306.
*Fahr, J., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural
analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese
society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421– 444.
*Findley, H. M. (1995). Fairness in social exchange: The relationship of
leader–member exchange and performance appraisal fairness to orga-
nizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lou-
isiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at
work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 39, 37– 63.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–116.
George, J. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial
behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299 –307.
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial be-
havior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a
service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698 –709.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good– doing good: A
conceptual analysis of the mood at work– organizational spontaneity
relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310 –329.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in
context. Human Performance, 10, 153–170.
*Graham, J. W., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Civic virtue: Contrasting two
forms of civic virtue based on political philosophy. Unpublished
manuscript.
*Hatcher, L., Ross, T. L., & Collins, D. (1989). Prosocial behavior, job
complexity, and suggestion contribution under gainsharing plans. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25, 231–248.
*Hattrup, K., O’Connell, M. S., & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of
multidimensional criteria: Distinguishing task and contextual perfor-
mance. Human Performance, 11, 305–319.
Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In D. R.
Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance:
Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 21–55). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howard, A. (1995). The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of
the effects of negative affectivity, leader–member exchange, and per-
ceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese
case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77,
3–21.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). The changing nature of perfor-
mance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Be-
havioral Science, 9, 131–146.
*Kemery, E. R., Bedeian, A. G., & Zacur, S. R. (1996). Expectancy-based
job cognitions and job affect as predictors of organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 635– 651.
*Kidwell, R. E., Jr., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesive-
ness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using
work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23, 775–793.
*Konovsky, M. A., Elliott, J., & Pugh, S. D. (1995, August). The dispo-
64 LEPINE, EREZ, AND JOHNSON
sitional and contextual predictors of citizenship behavior in Mexico.
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
*Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual
determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 17, 253–266.
*Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social
exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656 – 669.
Law, K. S., & Wong, C. (1999). Multidimensional constructs in structural
equation analysis: An illustration using the job perception and job
satisfaction constructs. Journal of Management, 25, 143–160.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of
multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23, 741–
755.
LePine, J. A. (2001). Team adaptation and postchange performance:
Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and
personality. Manuscript submitted for publication.
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing
task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and
openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563–593.
LePine, J. A., Hanson, M., Borman, W., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2000).
Contextual performance and teamwork: Implications for staffing. In
G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human
resources management (Vol. 19, pp. 53–90). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
*LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853– 868.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001a). An attributional model of helping
in the context of work groups. Academy of Management Review, 26,
67– 84.
*LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001b). Voice and cooperative behavior
as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential
relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive
ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326 –336.
*MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational
citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of man-
agerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behav-
ior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123–150.
*MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (1998). Transforma-
tional and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Un-
published manuscript, Indiana University Bloomington.
*McManus, M. A., & Kelly, M. L. (1999). Personality measures and
biodata: Evidence regarding their incremental predictive value in the life
insurance industry. Personnel Psychology, 52, 137–148.
*McNamara, M. L. (1993). The effect of welfare corporatist structures on
organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
*Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence
employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845– 855.
Moorman, R. H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job
satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and orga-
nizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations, 46, 759 –776.
*Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism– collectivism as
an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142.
*Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived
organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural jus-
tice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management
Journal, 41, 351–357.
*Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating
employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the
effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural
justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209 –225.
*Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship
behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.
*Motowidlo, S. J. (1984). Does job satisfaction lead to consideration and
personal sensitivity? Academy of Management Journal, 27, 910 –915.
Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual perfor-
mance and organizational citizenship behavior in human resource man-
agement. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 115–126.
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of
individual differences and contextual performance. Human Perfor-
mance, 10, 71– 83.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Schmit, M. J. (1999). Performance assessment in
unique jobs. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature
of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development
(pp. 56 – 87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task perfor-
mance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 475– 480.
*Munene, J. C. (1995). “Not-on-seat”: An investigation of some correlates
of organisational citizenship behavior in Nigeria. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 44, 111–122.
*Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. (1997).
An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship be-
haviors in a personal selling context. Journal of Marketing, 61, 85–98.
*Neuman, G. A., & Kickul, J. R. (1998). Organizational citizenship be-
haviors: Achievement orientation and personality. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 13, 263–279.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the
relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Reilly, C., III, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and
psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and
internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71, 492– 499.
Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction
causes performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2,
46 –53.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior and the good
soldier. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Wallace, & J. H. Harris (Eds.),
Personnel selection and classification (pp. 53– 67). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct
clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal
and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 48, 776 – 801.
*Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organiza-
tional citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–270.
*Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship
behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 31, 351–363.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996a). Meta-
analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for
leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and perfor-
mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380 –399.
*Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996b). Trans-
formational leadership behaviors and substitutes for leadership as deter-
 DIMENSIONALITY OF OCB
minants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259 –298.
*Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Fetter, R. (1993). Substitutes for
leadership and the management of professionals. Leadership Quar-
terly, 4, 1– 44.
*Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, 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.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the
theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.
Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
*Podsakoff, P. M., Niehoff, B. P., MacKenzie, S. B., & Williams, M. L.
(1993). Do substitutes for leadership really substitute for leadership? An
empirical examination of Kerr and Jermier’s situational leadership
model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54,
1– 44.
*Pond, S. B., Nacoste, R. W., Mohr, M. F., & Rodriguez, C. M. (1997).
The measurement of organizational citizenship behavior: Are we assum-
ing too much? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1527–1544.
*Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and
work performance among commission salespeople. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 615– 621.
Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V.
Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301–321). New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
*Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship be-
havior. Journal of Psychology, 132, 277–290.
*Schaubroeck, J., & Fink, L. S. (1998). Facilitating and inhibiting effects
of job control and social support on stress outcomes and role behavior:
A contingency model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 167–
195.
*Schnake, M., Cochran, D., & Dumler, M. P. (1995). Encouraging orga-
nizational citizenship: The effects of job satisfaction, perceived equity
and leadership. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7, 209 –221.
*Schnake, M., Dumler, M. P., & Cochran, D. S. (1993). The relationship
between “traditional” leadership, “super” leadership, and organizational
citizenship behavior. Group and Organization Management, 18, 352–
365.
*Scholl, R. W., Cooper, E. A., & McKenna, J. F. (1987). Referent selection
in determining equity perceptions: Differential effects on behavioral and
attitudinal outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 40, 113–124.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In
B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3– 43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
*Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citi-
zenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 68, 653– 663.
View publication stats
65
*Tansky, J. W. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior:
What is the relationship? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Jour-
nal, 6, 195–207.
*Tompson, H. B., & Werner, J. M. (1997). The impact of role conflict/
facilitation on core and discretionary behaviors: Testing a mediated
model. Journal of Management, 23, 583– 601.
*Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T. (1995). Psychological
ownership: An empirical examination of its consequences. Group and
Organization Management, 20, 210 –226.
*Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of
contingent workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41,
692–703.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role
behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over
muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. G., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization, and val-
idation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765– 802.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role
behavior: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of
Management Journal, 41, 108 –119.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Evidence for two factors of
contextual performance: Job dedication and interpersonal facilitation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.
*VanYperen, N. W., van den Berh, A. E., & Willering, M. C. (1999).
Towards a better understanding of the link between participation in
decision-making and organizational citizenship behaviour: A multilevel
analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72,
377–392.
Wagner, J. A., III, & LePine, J. A. (1999). Effects of participation on
performance and satisfaction: Additional meta-analytic evidence. Psy-
chological Reports, 84, 719 –725.
*Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational citizenship behav-
iors and their effect on organizational effectiveness in limited-menu
restaurants. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 56th
Annual Meeting, Cincinnati, OH, 307–311.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601– 617.
*Witt, L. A., & Silver, N. C. (1994). The effects of social responsibility and
satisfaction on extrarole behaviors. Basic and Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 15, 329 –338.
Received June 22, 2000
Revision received March 15, 2001
Accepted March 15, 2001 !