Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

e-Journal of Social & Behavioural Research in Business

Vol. 11, Iss. 1, June 2020, pp: 21 -38.
”http://www.ejsbrb.org”

Leaders Recognizing and Rewarding Organizational

Citizenship Behaviours During Formal Employee
Performance Evaluations

Julie D. Conzelmann
College of Business
University of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of conducting the study was to measure the perception of leadership
recognition and rewards related to exhibiting organizational citizenship behaviours among
employees who work in the healthcare industry in Washington State.
Design/ methodology/ approach: Qualifying participants completed a study through random,
voluntary completion of written and secure, web-based surveys. The results of the quantitative
descriptive analysis of 115 completed surveys answered the question of what effect does
leadership recognition of organizational citizenship behaviours in performance evaluations have
on employees’ productivity, teamwork, job performance, and satisfaction.
Results / findings: The findings supported the alternative hypotheses, indicating most
respondents exhibited citizenship-type behaviours, and leaders did not adequately recognize or
reward these behaviours, including during formal performance evaluations. The study of
organizational citizenship behaviours in all industries continues to emerge.
Practical/social implications: In the business setting, the practical and social implications are
that leaders can establish positive relationships and retain employees critical to organizational
success by recognizing and rewarding organizational citizenship behaviours, thus, also increasing
employee satisfaction, performance, teamwork, and productivity.
Originality: This paper addresses a need for organizational leaders to recognize the altruistic
contributions of employees who exhibit organizational citizenship behaviours, and offer a pat
on the back, or appropriate reward and recognition for a job well done during formal
performance evaluations.

Key words: Organizational citizenship behaviours; recognition and rewards; altruism;

performance evaluations; social exchange theory.

JEL Classification: J30; M52

PsycINFO Classification: 3630
FoR Code: 1503
ERA Journal ID#: 123340

© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 21

 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

Introduction
Information about leaders formally recognizing the contributions of employees in the
performance evaluation process in organizations is scarce. Many organizations lack the formal
procedures to recognize the value-added to the organization and employee performance by
employees who exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) besides those tasks, and other
behaviors organizations expect as part of generic job descriptions at the time of hiring
employees (Oh et al., 2015). Organizations must adapt to proven management theories to
continue attaining organizational goals successfully.

Organizations recruit or promote employees who can perform the activities for the
successful operation of the organization. The basis for employing one person over another in a
specific position is the qualifications to perform the duties of the position; yet, it does not
include the extent to which an employee may exhibit OCBs. Early scholars defined organizational
citizenship behaviors (OCBs)as discretionary behaviors intrinsic to individuals (Smith et al.,
1983). While organizational leaders can observe these altruistic behaviors, they are not part of
the formal job performance evaluation and recognition process in organizations (Gerpott et al.,
2019).

Part of the leadership focus on knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) includes how
leadership relates KSAs to OCBs (Muldoon et al., 2017). In the most recent years, several articles
provided information about the increase of employees exhibiting OCBs and the alignment with
KSAs, morals, trust, behaviors, and relationships in organizations (Wang & Sung, 2016; Yoshikawa
& Wei Hu, 2017; Bishop & Ross, 2018; Way et al., 2018; Tourigny et al., 2019). Besides the focus
of this article, one other source of literature suggests formally recognizing and rewarding
employees for their altruistic contributions to the organization (Newman et al., 2017), and one
article investigated recognition of OCBs, but from a broad, group-based perspective (Oh et al.,
2015). Thus, over the past seven years, the gap still exists for recognizing and rewarding OCBs
exhibited by employees. Leaders should focus on implementing a formal process to recognize
individuals with a high inclination for exhibiting OCBs as part of the hiring, retention, and reward
practices in organizations; such actions will continue to inspire employees to offer high-levels of
performance, increase job satisfaction, and increase employee retention.

Problem
Organizational leaders lack a formal process to recognize and reward the value-added by
employees who exhibit OCBs. Organizational citizenship behaviors are behaviors leaders might
not expect employees to perform as part of generic job descriptions and titles as provided by
human resources at the time of hire (Organ, 1988; Kinicki & Kreitner, 2006; Newman et al.,
2017). Lack of recognition in performance evaluations by leaders of employees who go over and
above by exhibiting OCBs while completing job tasks appears to affect the productivity of
individual employees negatively. Designing and implementing a performance evaluation process
that officially recognizes the value of individually exhibited OCBs would be beneficial to most
organizations (Johnson et al., 2009; Oh et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2017). Prior literature did
not reveal if any organizations directly or explicitly recognized OCBs as part of the formal reward
and recognition system for individual employees.

Employee Perspective
No prior proof or research exists that OCB is formally recognized in the performance
review process. Recognition of behaviors determines and defines the extent to which employees
believe they are a member of an organization (Scott & Davis, 2007). Prior research findings
proved that employees relate OCBs to individual job success and satisfaction (Li et al., 2010;
Bishop & Ross, 2018; Way et al., 2018; Lin & Liu, 2019).

An employee perception exists that OCB is an expectation of job performance (Chen &
Chiu, 2009; Murtaza et al., 2016; He et al., 2019). Employees who exhibit OCBs have a good faith
expectation of a reward for increased contributions, even though the employer is not
contractually obligated to provide any pay or benefits over the agreed pay-for-performance rate
© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 22
 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

during hire (Johnson et al., 2009). This perception and expectation may come from the added
term to official employee task documentation as other duties as assigned. Organizations hiring
employees because of the propensity to exhibit OCBs could create lasting benefits to
stakeholders, organizations, employees, vendors, and global societies (Chiaburu et al.,2011; Lin
& Liu, 2019).

Significance of Recognizing Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Organizational citizenship behaviors are essential to businesses for various reasons, but
specifically employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and retainment (Reiley & Jacobs,
2016; Sguera et al., 2018; Gerpott et al., 2019). Recognizing a job well done should be part of
organizational staffing decisions for successful operation and attainment of the company mission,
vision, and succession protocol. Organizational leaders should learn how to rate employees who
exhibit OCBs and then recognize and reward the performance above and beyond job task
expectations (Newman et al., 2017). Investing in employees through a social exchange of
recognition has the power to build trusting relationships and increase reciprocity of trust
(Tourigny et al., 2019).

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Succession Planning

Succession planning is crucial to the success of organizations (Schiffbauer et al., 2008;
Gowthami, 2012). Organizational leaders must be ready to recognize and reward employees for
meeting personal and organizational goals. Recognition includes promotional opportunities and
inclusion in succession planning processes,

Succession planning establishes a process that develops the skills and abilities of
employees, and prepares them for advancement, while retaining them to ensure a return
on the department‘s investment in their training. Also, this process is an ongoing
development of employees that ensures a smooth transition and minimal loss of
efficiency when a vacancy occurs in the department. (Gowthami, 2012, p. 342)

By selecting the best-skilled employees for promotional opportunities, especially those

who exhibit OCB to a high degree, leaders can mentor employees over time within the
organization providing an opportunity to select and train future organizational leaders. Some
organizations in other countries, such as China (Newman et al., 2017; He et al., 2019) and
Pakistan (Murtaza et al., 2016), where exhibiting OCBs is a cultural and moral expectation, and
leaders reward employees with more responsibilities and higher-level management positions.
Implementing a recognition and reward process for OCBs will then become part of sustaining the
continuity of business performance (Gowthami, 2012), increasing employee satisfaction and
production, and lowering the stress of change among organizational management.

Literature Review
A review of the literature about OCB over the past several decades revealed much
research about organizational and leadership perspectives, but only one recent study specifically
investigated the individual contributions of altruistic and intrinsic behaviors of employee groups
(Oh et al., 2015). Organizational citizenship behaviors, defined as discretionary actions of
individuals (Organ, 1977), is part of the basis of the social exchange theory first investigated by
Blau (1964) and expanded by Emerson (1976) in his research of leadership theory and OCB. The
social exchange theory meant that employees who exhibited OCB anticipated receiving a benefit
for the extra effort above and beyond job expectations (Emerson, 1976).

Several study findings revealed ways that organizations motivated and influenced the
work performance of employees and how leadership motivation and influence relate to the
exhibition of OCB in helping employees meet strategic organizational goals and increase job
satisfaction (Kuvaas, 2007, 2008). Such processes relate to corporate citizenship, (Lin & Liu,
2019) and create a cultural exchange of social activities integrating business identity with
employee integrity, loyalty, and cooperation. The social exchange relationship between leaders

© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 23

 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

and employees is significant regarding work value, performance, and turnover, and influencing
positive or negative attitudes (Shore et al., 2006; Wang & Sung, 2016). An examination of the
social exchange relationships noted a definite increase in altruism (Colbert & Wiit, 2007), a fact
that relates to stating social exchange is mutual obligations met based on trust (Blau, 1964).
Thus, the social exchange theory further supports the findings that extending recognition and
rewards enhances employee exhibition of OCBs, as noted from older research (Organ, 1977) but
also applied and discussed in current research findings (Tourigny et al., 2019).

Theoretical Framework
OCB. The pioneer of OCB defined the behavior as ‘individual behavior that is
discretionary’ (Organ, 1977, p. 39) and not part of the formal job performance evaluation and
recognition process of the organization. During his research on the subject through the published
dissertation, A Reappraisal and Reinterpretation of the Satisfaction-Causes-Performance
Hypothesis, the emphasis was on employee satisfaction gained from performing tasks outside the
scope of expected work tasks. As such, the underlying concept of Organ’s research was the
hypothesis that employees expect recognition for a job well done, was supported; however, to
what extreme employees held that expectation was not identified. Through further collaborative
research by Organ and his students, the concept of OCB became increasingly interesting in
organizational processes. Part of the reason for the lack of ability to define how and when OCB is
occurring in organizations is the many variations of OCB, which at the time had not been
considered for research (Organ, 1977). Over the past 40 years the concept of OCB has been
researched intermittently, but more so over the past 10 years, and linked most notably to the
social exchange theory.

Social Exchange Theory. Pioneers of social exchange theory (Homans, 1961; Blau,
1964) set the foundation for leaders to see the give-and-take process in the workplace—with
Homans and Blaus’ research findings forging the way for future scholars to equate leadership
support and recognition of a job well done to employee performance and behaviors. Past
literature on OCB has a foundation from several theoretical practices, such as participative
management theory (Collins, 1997), motivational, transformational, and situational leadership
theories (Yukl, 2010), and human resources management, planning, and behaviors (Rosen et al.,
1991). However, the most significant theoretical area that OCB falls under is social exchange
theory, broadly defined as actions initiated by one person with a possible expectation of a
receiving a reward for performing the action (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976; Sguera et al., 2018;
Tourigny et al., 2019). ‘Social exchange[..]is limited to actions that are contingent on rewarding
reactions from others’ (Emerson, 1976, p. 336) and is parallel to structural functionalism.
Another phrase provided by Emerson (1976) for social exchange theory is ‘strategic interaction’
(p. 336).

Emerson (1976) quickly linked OCB to the social exchange theory developed by Organ
(1977). Other research findings revealed several organizational practices and theories where OCB
may be implemented and exhibited (Hesselbein et al.,1997; Gerpott et al., 2019; Lin & Liu,
2019). Organizations rely on outsourcing, such as multi-national and transnational operations;
thus, OCBs are a vital part of corporate cultural engagement (Yoshikawa & Wei Hu, 2017). A
recommendation was that leaders should learn to recognize shifts in organizational theory and
structure and make appropriate changes (Ozen & Kusku, 2009). The variations and modifications
must reflect the contributions of employees exhibiting OCBs to become a ‘New Organization’
(Hesselbein et al., 1997, p. 5). Employee contributions build on the definition of OCB that
includes behaviors not directly, explicitly, and formally rewarded by the organization (Emerson,
1976). Emotional burnout and exhaustion have a negative effect on employees, and therefore on
the organization, resulting in a decrease of OCB because the level of leader/follower interaction
plays a significant role in employee attitudes and behaviors (Wang & Sung, 2016). Sensitivities
toward individual, group, and organizational success influenced the extent to which employees
exhibited OCB, and a lack of recognition exacerbated the adverse effects (Jha & Jha, 2009; Oh
et al., 2015).

Employee Culture and OCB. Organizational cultures are created by the

perceptions and contributions of employees, and the relationships between and among
© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 24
 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

employees and leaders (Holt et al., 2009; Tourigny et al., 2019). Something of note regarding
organizational cultures is the incorporation of commonly shared individual morals, and standards
can be integrated into the organizational culture (Spitzeck, 2009; Mishra & Bost, Jr., 2018;
Gerpott et al., 2019). A side-effect of shaping organizational cultures included many
organizational transformations. Researchers suggested corporate citizenship activities, such as
recognizing and rewarding employee discretional activities (OCBs) and modeling a joint purpose,
would create a perspective of dual benefit that increases social, economic, and ethical
connectedness (Lin & Liu, 2019). Including OCBs in performance evaluations would be of great
benefit toward strengthening common values and create a shared purpose (Gerpott et al., 2019).

Dual Benefit of Recognition and Rewards Through Formal Performance

Evaluation
The social exchange concept benefits organizations with employees who exhibit OCBs
through resources, rewards, and reinforcement (employees, pay, performance reviews); the
benefit to employees and organizations are opportunity, growth, and profit (Roess & Roche,
2017). Using the concepts derived from the social exchange theory, collecting data from an
employee perspective was necessary to answer the research question and hypothesis of if
increased productivity, teamwork, job performance, and satisfaction would be noticeable from
implementing a formal process of recognizing and rewarding employees for exhibiting OCB as
part of the employee evaluation process. The 115 participants in this study overwhelmingly
agreed with the hypothesis that they would enjoy their jobs, perform at a higher level
individually and in teams if the work performed over and above their general job descriptions
was formally recognized and rewarded. The quid pro quo, in this case, is that happy employees
are productive employees; and a productive staff equates to a successful business (Mo & Shi,
2017; Mishra & Bost, Jr., 2018).

Contribution to Research on OCB

The literature regarding relevant organizational leadership theories and practices that
may affect OCB is plentiful, such as models and strategies to increase organizational
performance and employee satisfaction (Galbraith, 1974), leadership commitment (Tourigny et
al., 2019), servant leadership (Newman et al., 2017), and corporate citizenship (Lin & Liu, 2019).
The social exchange theory is most appropriately linked to employees exhibiting OCBs (Emerson,
1976; Sguera et al., 2018; He et al., 2019). However, a gap exists regarding leaders formally
recognizing OCBs based on the social exchange theory premise of quid pro quo; getting
something in return for giving something—in this case—recognition and rewards for going above
and beyond (Oh et al., 2015; Muldoon et al., 2017; Sharma, 2018; Way et al., 2018). A significant
contribution of the study findings was tying OCB to ‘high quality, open-ended relationships and
learning’ (Sun et al., 2007, p. 559) indicating a long-term relationship and investment in
employees is necessary to build trusting relationships (Katz, 1964; Sguera et al., 2018; Gerpott et
al., 2019; He et al., 2019; Lin & Liu, 2019). Once employees and leaders become comfortable in
their relationships, loyalty, and contributory role behaviors become reciprocated, the
interdependency and mutuality of the relationships between leaders and employees have the
propensity to increase (Sun et al., 2007, p. 560; Tourigny et al., 2019).

Implications of Formal Recognition and Rewards for OCBs During

Performance Reviews
The identity conflicts within organizations because most performance reviews do not
include employee OCB contributions toward individual and organizational goals (Fiol et al.,
2009). Other researchers suggested several methods of measuring employee OCBs and
performance, and ways to improve organizational performance (Moseley & Dessinger, 2010; Oh
et al., 2015). One argument made was that performance improvement strategies contributed to
organizational success, reducing turnover through the recognition of diversity and personal
relationships (Swanson, 1999), and this information was later substantiated in research findings
(Oh et al., 2015). High-performance employees who exhibit OCBs increase the sustainability and
functionality of organizations and expect to receive additional benefits and compensation for
© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 25
 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

such performance (Nishii & Mayer, 2009; Oh et al., 2015). ‘Goals and ideas of individuals become
part of the organizational strategies to create employee buy-in toward the results for the
organization’ (Swanson, 1999, p. 21). When organizational leaders recognize discretionary
behaviors, they stimulate continued exhibition of employee OCBs; what is missing is the formal
recognition during formal performance reviews, in the form of a thank you, raise, or promotion
(Oh et al., 2015).

The elements of the selected design were quantitative and descriptive because the
variables in the study required only one instance of measurement during the research project to
assess any association between the elements and OCBs (Black, 2005). The study focus was on two
independent variables (altruism and compliance), five dependent variables (productivity,
teamwork, job performance, job satisfaction, and recognition and rewards), and two control
variables (mood and feedback).

The independent variables of altruism and compliance are inherent individual behaviors.
Altruism is an intrinsic behavior influenced by mood and emotions (Willer et al., 1997). For
example, an employee who arrives at work after an argument with a spouse the night before
might be irritable and exhibit a negative mood and attitude toward performing job tasks.
Compliance with requests to perform tasks may be affected by employee moods and emotions as
well (Willer et al., 1997).

The dependent variables coincide with individualistic, perceived value by employees

related to rewards and recognition (Mathis & Jackson, 2006). Some employees may view the
performance evaluation process as a way to assess individual contributions in a negative way
toward rating individual performance. Findings from the literature suggested performance
appraisals should only focus on essential job tasks and standard rating systems (Kreitner, 2004).
Other researchers indicated that standardizing performance appraisals creates room for rating
errors and bias and excluded rewarding the individual contributions of employees (Mathis &
Jackson, 2006).

The independent and control variables were intrinsic, emotional motivators that vary
among individuals (Emerson, 1976). These inherent motivators may have increased the successful
outcome of the research study to support the research question and hypothesis:

Research Question and Hypothesis

RQ¹: What effect does leadership recognition of OCBs in performance evaluations have
on employees’ productivity, teamwork, job performance, and satisfaction?

Null Hypothesis
Hº: There is no increase in productivity, teamwork, job performance, and satisfaction
because of implementing a formal process of recognizing and rewarding employees for
exhibiting OCB as part of the employee evaluation process.

Hypothesis
H¹: There is an increase in productivity, teamwork, job performance, and satisfaction
because of implementing a formal process of recognizing and rewarding employees for
exhibiting OCB as part of the employee evaluation process.

The control variables of mood and feedback were only a factor in the research data
results based on the information provided by the participants related to the question regarding
recent performance evaluations.

Justification
A quantitative study was an appropriate research method to determine if implementing
an organizational recognition and rewards process regarding employees who exhibit OCBs as part
of the official job tasks would affect employee productivity, satisfaction, teamwork, and job
© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 26
 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

performance. Sometimes qualitative research studies could provide the same results as a
quantitative study; however, a lengthy description of relevant variables was not the best method
to distribute and describe the information (Steinberg, 2008). A quantitative study provided more
in-depth results using the nominal, Likert-type scale (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, 2012; Steinberg,
2008), a universal and measurable method. Mathematical comparison of the quantitative data
for the variables assisted in determining the probability of if the research data supported the
research question. A comparison of the data from a quantitative perspective also uncovered
other relevant information for further research on the subject in a way not found through
qualitative research.

The Setting, Population, and Sample

People working in healthcare was the target population for this study because it is one of
the largest global employers. Ease of access to the sample from a large local population of
healthcare working in Washington State made the study viable. Calculation and determination of
the sample population size followed a formula recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001),
‘Sample Size = 104 + m, where m equals the number of independent variables’ (p. 117). The
formula required only 110 qualifying surveys, but 118 were completed. Of the 118 collected
surveys, three were incomplete; thus, only 115 surveys were collected. The additional five
surveys were included in the sample. Without previously determining which random five surveys
to exclude, it made sense to use all the qualifying, completed surveys for the data analysis
process without fear of skewing the findings.

The results of the survey assisted in determining that OCB was not formally recognized in
job performance evaluations and that the employees were aware of exhibiting OCB as part of
routine job tasks, but organizational leaders were not. The analysis of the data required using
various forms of statistical analysis to determine if any independent or dependent variables
existed to answer the research question. The results from the analysis assisted with supporting
the hypothesis and rejecting the null hypothesis.

Strengths
Discoveries from the study can be a tool for organizational leaders to implement process
improvements but in no way suggests the ideas or theories in the study are the best information
available for organizations. The expectation from the study was to expand on ways to use OCB to
the best benefit of organizational and human resources needs and providing ideas to increase
OCBs through leadership recognition and rewards of OCB through formal employee performance
evaluations.

Weaknesses
Information obtained in the study did not provide results that placed specific values on
OCB. Choosing a quantitative study, while the best for the scope of this research, still limited
the type of data collected The focus of the study was not about a specific person, organization,
or exhibition of certain OCB traits but only examined if participants working in the healthcare
industry believed leaders ignored some of the altruistic value and behaviors they provided at
work.

© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 27

 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

Limitations
While healthcare is one of the largest employers globally, and the minimum sample was
readily available, connecting with possible participants was difficult. Local hospital leaders
declined to allow recruitment on campus; thus, the participants were recruited in a grocery
store parking lot. Several anticipated problems were the inability to identify and recruit
qualified and willing participants, obtaining too little data to reach a conclusion, not asking for
the correct information, the possibility of participants dropping out of the study, and
‘performing the incorrect data analysis processes, skewing the outcome of the data’ (Neuman,
2003, p. 252).

Data Collection Instrument Justification and Validity

The original researcher granted permission to use and modify the validated data
collection instrument used for a research study on interactional justice and the effects of OCB
(Fournier, 2008). A copy of the letter requesting permission to use an existing, validated survey
(see Appendix A) and the signed permission to use an existing, validated survey (see Appendix B)
allowed using the questionnaire located in the dissertation by Dr. William Fournier (2008) titled,
Communication satisfaction, interactional justice, and organizational citizenship behaviors:
Staff perceptions in a university environment. Fournier’s research instrument was adapted from
four prior research studies: Organ (1977), Smith et al. (1983), Van Dyne et al. (1994), and Van
Dyne et al. (1995) increasing the construct validity of the research instrument. Job-related
information was also requested based on individual perceptions.

The validated research instrument (see Appendix C) used with permission was modified
to fit the needs of this study by removing all references to the original university in questions 20,
29, 30, 31, and 34; entirely removing questions 11, 19, 25, 26, 39, 44, 41; revising demographic
question 70 to list the 10 healthcare industry constructs; and revising the Likert-type scale from
seven responses to five responses. Because the modifications to the validated research
instrument were minimal, the modified instrument was stable and would likely produce similar
results, as if the survey were conducted under similar circumstances of the original study (Black,
2005). Thus, this study was a replication with a slight variation of the survey question topic
parameters. After the deletions and changes, the modified survey instrument contained 60
questions and was created online through an online survey generation tool that provides secure
links to online surveys.

A review of other data collection instruments did not provide the quantity or quality of
questions to obtain the most information available regarding the subject of OCB in comparison
with the Fournier (2008) data collection document. The questions in Fournier’s (2008) research
study replicated the same data appropriate for this study on OCBs. The research instrument
clearly explained what OCBs are, and requested ratings by participants of individual performance
and exhibition of the OCB descriptors using a Likert-type scale. The validity, reliability, and
strength of a Likert-type scale is from the ‘simplicity of use by researchers and using behavioral
or emotional categories to obtain responses’ (Neuman, 2003, p. 199).

Modification of the original data collection document adapted from Fournier (2008) was
necessary to adapt to the parameters of the data to complete the research study regarding OCB.
The changes were minimal. The questions regarding the perception of fairness were
appropriately related to job performance, fairness in the decision-making process of leadership,
and how employees interacted with leaders and peers. Collecting data regarding participants’
beliefs that organizational leaders recognized the contributions by employees regarding the
exhibition of OCBs in performance evaluations was the focus of the survey. The perception of
fair treatment was an essential factor in determining if employees exhibit OCBs (Kreitner, 2004;
Mathis & Jackson, 2006; Fournier, 2008).

© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 28

 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

Ethics. As part of the ethical requirements for conducting research, sampling process,
participants from the healthcare industry in Washington State received information regarding the
study. Participants had to acknowledge and understand any foreseeable direct or indirect risks to
their health and privacy before providing consent to participate in the study. Everyone received
a clear statement of the study, expectations, and goals; the time needed to complete the
survey; potential risks and benefits; assurance of confidentiality; withdrawal procedures; and
how to obtain a copy of the results (Cone & Foster, 2006; White, 2017).

Data collection process. The sample for the quantitative descriptive study
included capturing information from 115 individuals representing employees in 10 or more types
of healthcare facilities in Washington State. The specific roles included significant hospital staff,
mental health workers, assisted living nursing staff, general medical staff, dentists,
chiropractors, laboratory personnel, physical therapists, pediatricians, and urgent care facility
medical staff, and others.

Data analysis process. The quantitative research design was appropriate for
measuring employee productivity, teamwork, job performance, job satisfaction, teamwork, and
the perception of rewards and recognition. An analysis of the data using SPSS Version 20.0 (IBM,
2011) and Cronbach’s alpha, by matching the independent, dependent, and control variables,
measured the probable impact of leadership recognition of OCB on employee productivity,
teamwork, job performance, job satisfaction, teamwork.

Data analysis software was available to assist with the compilation and sorting of the
data from the research study. SPSS Version 20.0 software (IBM, 2011) was used to generate
statistical reports and tables. An independent and certified statistician consulted and reviewed
the data, lessening researcher bias, and calculation errors (Ge & Whitmore, 2010). Because of
the need to report accurate statistical findings for a quantitative research design method
requires the intricate use and knowledge of statistical analysis, a consultation with a member of
the American Statistical Association assisted with determining the appropriate method for the
standard deviation and which data analysis process was most suitable for the study. As part of
the analysis process, the certified statistician assisted the researcher by checking and validating
the statistical reduction techniques for the analysis regarding the findings of what, when, where,
why, and how the variables supported accepting the alternative hypothesis and rejecting the null
hypothesis (Scott & Howell, 2008).

During the research process there was an expectation that some participants would
provide information considered outlying data. Outlying data can skew the results of these
statistical analysis methods: multiple-regression analysis, ANOVA, descriptive analysis, and
covariance analysis (Brown, 2011). No outlying information was identified during the descriptive,
quantitative analysis.

Results
The problem posed in this study was how to answer the research question asking what
effect leadership recognition of OCBs in performance evaluations will have on employees’
productivity, teamwork, job performance, and satisfaction. The following process helped
determine the answer to the research question.

A total of 118 suitable participants representing employees from 10 various healthcare

industries participated in the study survey. The data from three incomplete surveys returned
during the data collection process are not included in the final analysis. Thus, the results
represent a purposive sample of 115 employees representing each of 10 various healthcare
industries, to include employees holding management and non-management positions in
healthcare organizations in Washington State. All qualifying participants gained access to the
survey through the secure website, read an informed consent form, and accepted they

© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 29

 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

understood the risks and benefits of participation before completing the survey. The analysis of
the data follows in the next sections.

Response Rate and Demographics

Table 1 contains the survey constructs, a breakdown of the number of survey questions
that pertained to one of the six variables in the research question: leadership recognition of OCB
(20), OCBs (4), productivity (11), teamwork (5), job performance (8), and job satisfaction (1).
The remaining seven questions provided demographic information about the participants. The
modified survey instrument was offered as a four-page printed document, and online, to
qualifying participants who met the inclusion criteria: (a) 18 years or older, (b) worked in the
healthcare industry in Washington State, (c) agreed to participate in the study.

Table 1:
Survey Question Construct

Construct Number of Items Survey Questions

Leadership Recognition 20 32 to 51
OCBs 4 5 to 8
Productivity 11 14 to 20; 22 to 24; 30*
Teamwork 5 1 to 4; 25
Job Performance 8 11 to 13; 21; 26 to 29*
Satisfaction 1 9
Note:* Questions 10 and 31 are not significant to the outcome of the data analysis as they did not
conform to the Likert-type scale used for the remaining survey questions.

Table 2 displays the psychometric characteristics for the six summated scale scores. The
Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients ranged from r =.87 to r =.96 with a median alpha of r
=.92. These data suggest that all scales have adequate levels of internal reliability (Cohen,
1988).

Table 2:
Psychometric Characteristics for Summated Scale Scores (N = 115)

Score Number of Items M SD Low High α

Leadership Recognition 20 3.30 0.78 1.65 4.45 0.96
OCBs 4 3.63 0.86 1.50 5.00 0.87
Productivity 11 3.34 0.80 1.64 4.82 0.94
Teamwork 5 3.58 0.85 1.40 5.00 0.88
Job Performance 8 3.37 0.79 1.63 5.00 0.92
Satisfaction 1 3.89 0.85 2.00 5.00 n/aa
Note:ª The satisfaction score had one item only, so no Cronbach alpha coefficient was
calculated.

Appendix D displays the frequency counts for the selected variables. Out of 102
participants who provided gender information, more women (n = 64) than men (n = 38)
responded. The participants ranged in ages from 18 to over 60, with the most participants in the
30-39 age group (21%) and 40-49 age group (29%). Most participants received some college
education (64%), and 17% had at least obtained a bachelor’s degree. The most common reported
salary range was $40,000-$49,000 annually (24%), and the most frequent length of time the
participants have been working in their current position is about 1-5 years (24%). Many
participants worked full-time (64%), held non-management (42%) or administrative (9%)
positions, and worked in major hospitals (26%). Sixty-seven percent of participants reported the
level of job satisfaction stayed the same. The level of productivity stayed the same for 67% of
participants. As for the perception of receiving rewards and recognition from leadership, 59% of
the participants reported they had not received a raise in pay, a job title promotion, or both a
raise in pay and job title promotion.
© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 30
 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

Findings
The findings from the data analysis answered whether leadership recognition of OCB was
positively related to employee productivity, teamwork, job satisfaction, and rewards. The data
analysis was organized according to a case review of the research question and hypothesis, rate
of response and demographics, findings, validity, and reliability of the research instrument, and
descriptive analysis of the sample, and the report of data gathered for the research question.

Research hypothesis. The research hypothesis predicted that, there is an increase

in productivity, teamwork, job performance, and satisfaction because of implementing a formal
process of recognizing and rewarding employees for exhibiting OCB as part of the employee
evaluation process, and the null hypothesis, there is no increase in productivity, teamwork, job
performance, and satisfaction because of implementing a formal process of recognizing and
rewarding employees for exhibiting OCB as part of the employee evaluation process. To test this,
Table 3 provides the Pearson product-moment correlations among the test variables of
leadership recognition, OCB, productivity, teamwork, job performance, and satisfaction. The
inspection of the table found all six variables to have significant positive correlations with the
other variables at the p <.001 level. The findings provided support for the acceptance of the
research hypothesis and rejection of the null hypothesis.

Table 3:
Inter-correlations Among the Summated Scale Scores (N = 115)

Score 1 2 3 4 5 6
Leadership Recognition 1.00
OCBs 0.67 1.00
Productivity 0.90 0.70 1.00
Teamwork 0.68 0.77 0.75 1.00
Job Performance 0.89 0.67 0.91 0.74 1.00
Satisfaction 0.56 0.71 0.63 0.70 0.58 1.00
*Note: All correlations are significant at the p <.001 level

Discussion
The answer to the research question asking what effect leadership recognition of
organizational citizenship behaviors in performance evaluations will have on employees’
productivity, teamwork, job performance, and satisfaction is that recognition of OCBs by leaders
is that recognition does positively affect the productivity of employees who exhibit OCBs.
Responses to the survey indicated that employees know that organizational leaders lack a formal
process to recognize and reward the value-added by employees who exhibit OCBs. The
descriptive, quantitative study supported the hypothesis that leaders formally recognizing
employees who exhibit OCB as part of the formal performance evaluation process might be a
significant addition to organizational policies. The research can be replicated across various
industries on a global scale with the probability of indicating this phenomenon exists in all areas
of business.

The results of the research study are important from a leadership perspective because
the findings from the data analysis suggested that when employees are recognized and rewarded
for the contributions toward organizational goals, performance increases. In the research
conducted by Fournier (2008) the results regarding OCB indicated employee awareness and
perception of exhibiting OCB is positive, and this was substantiated through further study of
organizational groups (Oh et al., 2015), in addition to this study.

© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 31

 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

Summary of the Literature

The transformation of organizations into high-performance workplaces should include the
recognition of and rewards for exhibiting specific individual contributions, including OCBs. As
part of the new organizational shift toward recognizing employee contributions, employees who
believe they are essential members of organizations through the training and development they
receive as part of their job performance are more satisfied, collaborative, and productive
members of the organization. Employees relate OCBs to individual job success and satisfaction in
addition to deserving of recognition and rewards. Recognition includes promotions, pay raises,
certificates of merit, and, at a minimum, a verbal thank you or pat on the back for a job well
done. The employee perspective is that offering recognition and rewards can and does positively
affect employee’s job satisfaction, performance, and retention in organizations.

Dissenting research perspectives regarding recognition of OCBs.

Some researchers discovered that recognition and rewards for employee contributions
are not always necessary or conducive to organizational success. A decade ago, many employees
reported a sense of dread at the thought of receiving negative job performance feedback during
the formal performance review process. Some researchers disagreed with the premise that
employees should receive recognition and rewards for exhibiting OCBs. One researcher
deconstructed the performance review process in his study and stated that employee
perceptions of recognition and rewards are negative (Culbert, 2010). Employees who received
constructive criticism felt the review process was negative. Employees awaiting the impending
performance review also believed the intent of the performance review process was to demean
employees, not motivate them as a productive member of the organization.

Concurring with the assumptions made by Culbert (2010), Buntzman and Parker (2008)
discussed the leadership perspective of providing recognition and rewards for employee
performance reviews. From a leadership perspective, the research concluded that recognition
and rewards do not influence employee perceptions of employee value to the organization
(Buntzman & Parker, 2008). Some employees’ perceptions indicated that recognition and
rewards did not improve the clarity of expectations in performing to the benefit of attaining the
organizational mission and values. The overall suggestion from the study findings was for
organizations to stop using the performance review as a measurable means of employee
productivity and job satisfaction because the process is detrimental to motivation and negatively
influences employee performance and satisfaction.

Supporting research perspectives regarding recognition of OCBs.

While formally recognizing OCBs may not be beneficial for some organizations, most of
the literature suggested organizational leaders should investigate the subject and determine if
formal recognition of OCBs is a viable human resource process. Similar to this study, recent
researcher’s findings refuted the findings that leaders recognizing OCBs negatively contributes to
organizational culture and employee welfare. Several researchers agree that OCBs are positively
related to service-oriented OCBs and that OCBs positively influence productivity, job
performance, teamwork, and job satisfaction (Oh et al., 2015; Newman, 2017). Further research
upheld the argument that organizational leaders lack the formal process to recognize and reward
the value-added by employees who exhibit OCBs (Oh et al., 2015). Implementation of programs
to include leadership recognition and rewards of OCBs outside the normally required job
performance descriptions is the next logical step (Sharma, 2018). Implementing reward and
recognition programs may inspire an increase in employee productivity, a desire to work as part
of a team, improve general job task performance, and boost professional and personal job
satisfaction (Tourigny et al., 2019).

To further support the need and expectation of implementing formal recognition and
rewards programs, several studies explored employee perceptions of adding OCB as a weighted
part of job performance evaluations (Oh et al., 2015; Sguera et al., 2018; Gerpott et al., 2019).
The study results indicated employees agreed that OCB should be recognized by leadership as
part of the formal performance evaluation process. The statistical results of previous research
also substantiated these findings, indicating that employees’ job performance evaluations should
recognize employee performance over and above the tasks employees are expected to perform
© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 32
 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

at the time of hire, falling under the premise of social exchange and perceived fairness (Oh et
al., 2015; Sharma, 2018). Employees also stated an expectation that organizations already
included OCB as a standard part of the performance evaluation process (Oh et al., 2015).
However, implementation of such recognition and rewards may be difficult because tracking OCB
behaviors could detract from oversight of integral organizational processes (Multdoon et al.,
2017).

A strong need exists for organizational leaders to recognize employee contributions

through formally recognizing employees whose altruistic actions uphold the mission and values of
the organization, over and above the expected job tasks. Leaders should examine thoroughly the
rules, roles, norms, and values that may assist in building a strong, stable organization.
Organizational performance is achieved when leaders show they care about employees and put
employees first; meaning, employees are willing to do more to the benefit of the company,
leader, and self (Mo & Shi, 2017; Ahn, 2018). When leaders recognize a job well done, the
recognition of these behaviors (OCBs) determines and defines the extent to which employees
believe they are a member of an organization, and the exchange of appreciation and respect is
rewarded; thus, creating and sustaining a unified, positive, and family-like culture (Bommer et
al., 2007; Oh et al., 2015; He et al., 2019; Lin & Liu, 2019).

With the gap existing between the positive and negative aspects of leadership formally
recognizing OCBs in performance evaluations, it is time for leaders to realize employee job roles
are essential, and OCBs are a valuable organizational asset (Muldoon et al., 2017). Previous
research and literature exists to argue for and against the need for leadership recognition of
OCBs (Buntzman & Parker, 2008; Culbert, 2010); therefore, the research study findings can only
be a guide for organizational leaders to investigate ways to improve employee performance,
satisfaction, teamwork, and productivity (Gerpott et al., 2019).

The argument for leadership recognition of OCBs clearly states that employees’
productivity and job satisfaction increase as they are recognized for a job well done. However,
the arguments against leadership recognition of OCBs indicate that some organizations may
endure a negative benefit and hardship in recognizing employees who exhibit OCBs. The decision
to include the recognition of OCBs in performance evaluations should be included in the job
performance qualifications assigned to specific industries and positions as the organization
recruits and hires new employees. This step may lessen the gap between formally recognizing
and not formally recognizing OCBs, and create a map and timeline of which industries fall into
the positive or negative portion of the gap. Without further research specific to the positive and
negative effects of rewards, recognition, and performance reviews on an individual level, in one
particular industry, the difference between the positive and negative social behaviors toward the
goals of organizations and personal growth of employees could remain unclear.

Limitations
Problems that occurred during the data collection process were minimal. One expected
limitation was using a very small sample size, considering the larger population of individuals
working in healthcare. While a larger sample was available, the conclusion was that collecting
and using a smaller sample population of 110 surveys, based on a formula by Tabachnick and
Fidell (2011, p. 117) would provide an opportunity for accurate results. Another limitation was
that some important variables might have been overlooked, omitted, or unidentified during the
literature research process. The possibility of respondents’ requesting to withdraw from the
study or not completing the survey was anticipated. No one requested withdrawal, and three
surveys were incomplete. Other limitations of possibly choosing the wrong data analysis or
reporting method were unfounded, per the statistical expert who verified the data results.

© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 33

 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

Implications
Organizational leaders must step back and realize that the saying, happy employees are
productive employees, is a truthful statement. If employees perceive no sense of value and
recognition for the work they accomplish, the result for the organization may be a lack of
productivity. A simple pat on the back can be an extremely cost-effective way to encourage and
increase employee productivity. By recognizing and rewarding even the smallest accomplishment
by employees toward organizational goals, organizational leaders are building a foundation of
trust and camaraderie that will only strengthen the entire organization.

Another reason to include OCBs in the formal performance evaluation process is to

recognize the intrinsic personal value of good citizenship in the workplace. Encouraging
employees when they perform tasks on an altruistic level; doing things for others without
prompting may become a useful tool for increasing productivity and performance, and enabling
team-building across the organization. Building a circle of reciprocal trust between employees
and organizational leaders may be a daunting and challenging task given the global economic
situation.

Shareholders, boards of directors, organizational leaders, employees, and entire

communities are affected by the success or failure of an organization. Shareholders expect a
return on the monetary and physical investments made toward the organization’s growth. Boards
of directors and organizational leaders are charged with recognizing and implementing processes
that meet or exceed the expectations of the shareholders. Communities expect organizations to
help with the economic flow of goods and services by employing residents who purchase products
and services from other organizations within the community. These expectations rest on the
happiness and productivity of employees. Leadership recognition of employees’ citizenship
behaviors may be a cost-effective way to meet the most important and specific expectations of
shareholders and communities: increase revenue.

Recommendations for Future Research

Replication of the study with different samples or populations is possible using the same
survey questions and only changing the demographic inquiry of job or industry type. Removing
the response of licensed medical personnel from question 58, and changing the response
parameters from the 10 listed healthcare industries to retail or other service industries for
question 60, it may be possible to obtain the same results. Checking for alternative or new
variables may be helpful in further proving the results, and strengthening the fixed variables
found throughout a literature review. A qualitative case study gathering individual perspectives,
direct interviews, and observations may also help garner a more in-depth perspective of leaders
recognizing and rewarding employees who exhibit OCBs. The responses pertaining to the survey
questions, posed as open-ended questions, and thus gathering detailed descriptions of personal
interactions, could then have a different outcome regarding leaders' behaviors toward employees
wherein employees might or might not perceive comments, actions, or promotions as a form of
rewards and recognition.

With more time and resources, the scope and limitations could be lessened. For short-
term organizational goals, implementing in-service training or pilot programs, and tracking the
results of the programs may show either a positive or negative change in organizational
productivity. The results of the training or pilot program can help with designing a reward and
recognition program tailored for the specific organization or industry. Conversely, the training
and pilot program could reveal a negative benefit to the organization. Results from the training
and pilot programs will only take a short amount of time to reveal the need or lack of need to
change organizational policies and procedures. The training and pilot programs also may be a
cost-saving project to identify whether a need for leadership recognition processes exists. The
study only covers aspects of OCB theory. Further research is warranted to take the subject to a
new level.

© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 34

 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

Conclusions
The results of the study indicated that employees believed that individual behaviors and
actions are of significant value to the organization, but that leaders do not provide the needed
recognition and rewards to increase employee motivation. This lack of leadership recognition
negatively affects the level of satisfaction, productivity, active teamwork, and performance
within organizations. The research findings indicated that people employed in management
positions in the healthcare industry perceived a lack of recognition for their efforts. Therefore,
the assumption can be made that regardless of the hierarchical level of employment, formal
recognition, and rewards—a pat on the back—may be beneficial for increasing the level of
employee satisfaction, productivity, active teamwork, and performance within organizations.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks the Center for Educational and Instructional Technology Research, College of
Doctoral Studies, University of Phoenix™, for supporting the preparation of this article.
Specifically, Dr. Patricia D’Urso, as the reviewer for this article, and Dr. Mansureh Kebritchi, as
the lead presenter for the journal article process. The additional support from Dr. Crystal Davis,
Kellyn Miller, and Eric Conzelmann is appreciated.

References
Ahn, J., Lee, S., & Yun, S. (2018). Leaders’ core self-evaluation, ethical leadership, and employees’ job
performance: The moderating role of employees’ exchange ideology. Journal of Business Ethics,
148, 457—470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3030-0
Bishop, R., & Ross, S. (2018). Trust and leadership in the military environment. E-Journal of Social &
Behavioural Research in Business, 9(1), 76—83. Retrieved from http://www.ejsbrb.org
Black, T. R. (2005). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research
design, measurement and statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bommer, W. H., Dierdorff, E. C., & Rubin, R. S. (2007). Does prevalence mitigate relevance? The
moderating effect of group-level OCB on employee performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 1481—1494. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28226149
Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organizational development. San Francisco: Prentice-Hall.
Buntzman, G., & Parker, R. D. (2008). Toward a management strategy for optimal recruiting: Potential
applicant concerns on goodness of fit in the corporate culture. Academy of Strategic Management
Journal, 7, 81—93.
Chen, C., & Chiu, S. (2009). The mediating role of job involvement in the relationship between job
characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(4),
474—494. https://doi.org/10.3200/socp.149.4.474-494
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model of personality
traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96(6), 1140—1166. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024004
Colbert, A. E., & Wiit, L. A. (2007). The role of goal-focused leadership in enabling the expression of
conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 790—796.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014187
Collins, D. (1997). The ethical superiority and inevitability of participatory management as an
organizational system. Organization Science, 8(5), 488—507. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.5.489
Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (2006). Dissertation and Theses from Start to Finish: Psychology and Related
Fields (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Culbert, S. A. (2010). Get rid of the performance review! How companies can stop intimidating, start
managing-and focus on what really matters. New York, NY: Business Plus.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335—362.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003

© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 35

 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & O'Conner, E. J. (2009). Managing intractable identity conflicts. Academy of
Management Review, 34(1), 32—55. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.35713276
Fournier, W. H. (2008). Communication satisfaction, interactional justice, and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Staff perceptions in a university environment (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest. UMI Number 3319021.
Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, European Institute
for Advanced Studies, 4(3), 28—36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.4.3.28
Ge, W., & Whitmore, G. A. (2010). Binary response and logistic regression in recent accounting research
publications: A methodological note. Revised Quantitative Financial Accounting, 34, 81—93.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-009-0123-1
Gerpott, F., Quaquebeke, N. V., Schlamp, S., & Voelpel, S. C. (2019). An Identity perspective on ethical
leadership to explain organizational citizenship behavior: The interplay of follower moral identity
and leader group prototypicality. Journal of Business Ethics,156,1063—1078.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3625-0
Gowthami, C. (2012). Succession planning a need or a necessity—A global perspective. International Journal
of Management, IT and Engineering, 2(9), 341—352. Retrieved from http://www.ijmra.us
He, P., Peng, Z., Zhao, H., & Estay, C. (2019). How and when compulsory citizenship behavior leads to
employee silence: A moderated mediation model based on moral disengagement and supervisor–
subordinate guanxi views. Journal of Business Ethics,155,259—274.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3550-2
Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckhard, R. (Eds.). (1997). The organization of the future. New York, NY:
The Peter F. Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit Management.
Holt, S., Bjorklund, R., & Green, V. (2009). Leadership and culture: Examining the relationship between
cultural background and leadership perceptions. Journal of Global Business Issues, 3(2), 149—164.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace&World.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2574301
IBM Corp. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Jha, S., & Jha, S. (2009). Determinants of organizational citizenship behaviour: A review of literature.
Journal of Management & Public Policy, 1(1), 33—42.
Johnson, S. K., Holladay, E., & Quinones, M. A. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior in performance
evaluations: Distributive justice or injustice? Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 409—418.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9118-0
Katz, D. (1964). Motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131—146.
Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2006). Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills, and best practices (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill, Irwin.
Kreitner, R. (2004). Management (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Kuvaas, B. (2007). Different relationships between perceptions of developmental performance appraisal and
work performance. Personnel Review, 36(3), 378—397.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710731338
Kuvaas, B. (2008). An exploration of how the employee-organization relationship affects the linkage
between perception of developmental human resource practices and employee outcomes. Journal
of Management Studies, 45(1), 1—25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00710.x
Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and
organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2),
395—404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018079
Lin, Y., & Liu, N. (2019). Corporate citizenship and employee outcomes: Does a high-commitment work
system matter? Journal of Business Ethics, 156,1079—1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-
3632-1
Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2006). Human resource management (11th ed.). Mason, OH: Thompson-
Southwestern.
Mishra, V., & Bost, M., Jr. (2018). Investigating the effects of cultural-mindset priming on evaluation of job
performance behaviors. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 14(4), 846—862.
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i4.1617

© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 36

 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

Mo, S., & Shi, J. (2017). Linking ethical leadership to employees’ organizational citizenship behavior:
Testing the multilevel mediation role of organizational concern. Journal of Business Ethics,
141,151—162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2734-x
Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of improving performance in the workplace:
Vol.3. Measurement and evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Muldoon, J., Keough, S. M., & Liguori, E. W. (2017). The role of job dedication in organizational citizenship
behavior performance. Management Research Review, 40(10), 1042—1057.
https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-07-2016-0168
Murtaza, G., Abbas, M., Raja, U., Roques, O., & Khalid, A. (2016). Rizwan Mushtaq. impact of Islamic work
ethics on organizational citizenship behaviors and knowledge-sharing behaviors. Journal of
Business Ethics 2016(133),325—333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2396-0
Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Boston:
MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2017). How servant leadership influences
organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality.
Journal of Business Ethics, 145,49—62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6
Nishii, L., & Mayer, D. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The
moderating role of leader-member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412—1426. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017190
Oh, S. H., Chen, Y., & Sun, F. (2015). When is a good citizen valued more? Organizational citizenship
behavior and performance evaluation. Social behavior and personality. Society for Personality
Research 43(6), 1009—1020. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.6.1009
Organ, D. W. (1977). A Reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis.
Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 46—53. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1977.4409162
Organ, D. W. (1988). Issues in organization and management series. Organizational citizenship behavior:
The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA, England: Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4282145
Ozen, S., & Kusku, F. (2009). Corporate environmental citizenship variation in developing countries: An
institutional framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(2), 297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
008-0001-0
Reiley, P. J., & Jacobs, R. R. (2016). Ethics matter: Moderating leaders’ power use and followers’
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 134,69—81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-
2416-0
Roess, M., & Roche, M. (2017). Job desire and response distortion in personality assessments. E-Journal of
Social & Behavioural Research in Business, 8(2), 1—15. Retrieved from http://www.ejsbrb.org
Rosen, R. H., Berger, L., & Tarcher, J. P. (1991). Human resources management: The healthy company:
Eight strategies to develop people, productivity, and profits. Compensation Benefits Review,
24(78). https://doi.org/10.1177/088636879202400423
Schiffbauer, J., Barrett O'Brien, J., Timmons, B. K., & Kiarie, W. N. (2008). The role of leadership in HRH
development in challenging public health settings. Human Resources for Health, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-6-23
Scott, K. W., & Howell, D. (2008). Clarifying analysis and interpretation in grounded theory: Using a
conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 7(2), 1—15. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690800700201
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems
perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sguera, F., Bagozzi, R. P., Huy, Q. N., Boss, R. W., & Boss, D. S. (2018). The more you care, the worthier i
feel, the better i behave: How and when supervisor support influences (un)ethical employee
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,153,615—628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3339-8
Sharma, D. (2018). When fairness is not enough: Impact of corporate ethical values on organizational
citizenship behaviors and worker alienation. Journal of Business Ethics 150, 57—68.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3107-9
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic exchange: Construct
development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 837—867.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00046.x
© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 37
 Conzelmann – Volume 11, Issue 1 (2020)

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653—663. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-
9010.68.4.653
Spitzeck, H. (2009). Organizational moral learning: What, if anything, do corporations learn from NGO
critique? Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 157—173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0112-2
Steinberg, W. J. (2008). Statistics alive! Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Sun, L., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior,
and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3),
558—577. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25525821
Swanson, R. A. (1999). The foundations of performance improvement and implications for practice.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1(1), 1—25. doi:10.1177/152342239900100102
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). London, England: Pearson.
Tourigny, L., Han, J., Baba, V. V., & Pan, P. (2019). Ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility in
China: A multilevel study of their effects on trust and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal
of Business Ethics 158,427—440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3745-6
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and
definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215—
285.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J., & Dienesch, R. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct
redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765—802.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256600
Wang, Y. D., & Sung, W. C. (2016). Predictors of organizational citizenship behavior: Ethical leadership and
workplace jealousy. Journal of Business Ethics, 135, 117—128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
014-2480-5
Way, S. A., Simons, T., Leroy, H., & Tuleja, E. A. (2018). What is in it for Me? Middle manager behavioral
integrity and performance. Journal of Business Ethics,150, 765—777.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3204-9
White, G. E. (2017). The Dissertation Warrior: The Ultimate Guide to Being the Kind of Person Who
Finishes a Doctoral Dissertation or Thesis. Portland, OR: Triumphant Heart International, Inc.
Willer, D., Lovaglia, M. J., & Markovsky, B. (1997). Power and influence: A theoretical bridge. Social
Forces, 76(2), 571—603. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/76.2.571
Yoshikawa, T., & Wei Hu, H. (2017). Organizational citizenship behaviors of directors: An integrated
framework of director role-identity and boardroom structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 99—
109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2808-9
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

© e-JSBRB Vol.11, Iss.1 (2020) 38

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.