A Historical Review of The Development of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Its Implications For The Twenty-First Century

Personnel Review
A historical review of the development of organizational citizenship behavior

(OCB) and its implications for the twenty-first century
Lanndon Ocampo, Venus Acedillo, Alin Mae Bacunador, Charity Christine Balo, Yvonne Joreen
Lagdameo, Nickha Shanen Tupa,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lanndon Ocampo, Venus Acedillo, Alin Mae Bacunador, Charity Christine Balo, Yvonne Joreen
Lagdameo, Nickha Shanen Tupa, (2018) "A historical review of the development of organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB) and its implications for the twenty-first century", Personnel Review, Vol. 47
Issue: 4, pp.821-862, https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2017-0136
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2017-0136
Downloaded by INSEAD At 06:35 25 May 2018 (PT)
Downloaded on: 25 May 2018, At: 06:35 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 348 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
Development
A historical review of the of OCB and its
development of organizational implications
citizenship behavior (OCB) and its

implications for the 821
twenty-first century Received 29 April 2017

Revised 22 November 2017
2 December 2017
Lanndon Ocampo Accepted 22 December 2017
Department of Industrial Engineering, Cebu Technological University,

Cebu City, The Philippines, and
Venus Acedillo, Alin Mae Bacunador, Charity Christine Balo,
Yvonne Joreen Lagdameo and Nickha Shanen Tupa
School of Management, University of the Philippines Cebu,

Cebu City, The Philippines
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a historical account of organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB) based on the existing literature.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper performs keywords search of published articles from 1930 to
2017 in widely used research databases.
Findings – The historical review shows that the OCB, as a field of study, was slow to develop. Although it
has been introduced in the late 1970s and officially defined in the 1980s, its origins can be traced
back to the 1930s. Despite this, OCB is generally regarded as a relatively new construct and has become
one of the biggest subjects studied in the literature. OCB has reached far and wide into the business
and management domains, supporting the fact that the well-being employees and their behaviors
can greatly affect organizations’ effectiveness and performance. Having been the topic of a significant
number of studies, there have been inconsistent research findings regarding the concepts. Furthermore,
some concepts have been noted to overlap, with several scholars using different terms for essentially
similar concepts.
Originality/value – The advent of technology and globalization has greatly affected organizations today
which resulted in increased competition in the global business. Firms have started to look into the behavior
exhibited by employees as a means of achieving competitive advantage, such as OCB. Voluminous works
have been conducted regarding the study of OCB; however, none have been recorded to make an in-depth
exploration of when and how it first surfaced. Since its official introduction, explorations regarding OCB have
dramatically increased, most especially in the twenty-first century. Unfortunately, this has resulted in an
increasing difficulty to keep up with the theoretical and empirical developments in the literature. As interest
in OCB continues to grow, coherent integration of the concept becomes progressively more complex and
necessary. This paper looks into the chronological evolution of the OCB, giving precise details of its
development from the time it was first conceptualized up until the present wherein OCB has been used to
indicate organizational effectiveness and performance.
Keywords Qualitative, Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), Critical, Twenty-first century,
Chronological evolution, Historical review, Literature development, OCB development
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Although Katz and Kahn (1966) were the first to observe employees’ extra-role behavior in Personnel Review
the workplace, it was Bateman and Organ (1983) who coined the term “organizational Vol. 47 No. 4, 2018
pp. 821-862
citizenship behavior” (OCB). Organ (1988, p. 4) concretely defined OCB as “individual © Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward DOI 10.1108/PR-04-2017-0136
PR system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization.”
47,4 According to Podsakoff et al. (2000) and Cinar et al. (2013), this definition was actually
drawn from Barnard’s (1938) concept of individuals’ “willingness to cooperate” and
Katz’s (1964) differentiation between one’s reliable performance of work functions and
“innovative and spontaneous behaviors.” Organ (1997) later on redefined the concept,
referring to OCB as any discretionary work-related behavior that goes beyond routine
822 duties and which supports one’s social or psychological environment (Cem-Ersoy et al., 2015;
Zeinabadi and Salehi, 2011).
Organ’s and his colleagues’ works on OCB became the foundation upon which
succeeding authors based their own studies. Although there have been some attempts to
define OCB in their own terms, these definitions still share essentially the same meaning
with Organ and colleagues. Niehoff and Moorman (1993), for instance, stated that OCBs are
behaviors not formally required of employees. On the other hand, Van Dyne et al. (1994)
took OCB to mean a concept that encompasses an individual’s positive behaviors that
are relevant to the organization. Clearly, Organ and his colleagues continue to influence
the field.
OCB has been explored in various perspectives and contexts. This interest of domain
scholars on OCB in both theory and practice has been motivated largely by a volume of
evidence which shows that OCB is related to a number of individual level (e.g. managerial
ratings of employee performance, reward allocation decisions, and a variety of
withdrawal-related criteria) and organizational-level outcomes (e.g. productivity,
efficiency, reduced costs, customer satisfaction, and unit-level turnover) as reported by
Podsakoff et al. (2009). This has resulted to a great number of studies which covered the link
between OCB and its determinants and dimensions, such as job satisfaction and
organizational commitment (Koys, 2001; Yoon and Suh, 2003). Moreover, the relationship of
OCB to other related concepts was also explored by many scholars. However, there were
apparent inconsistencies in their results. This has led to confusion in the presentation of
OCB and its extensions, suggesting a lack of focus in the literature.
The dramatic growth of OCB investigations in the twenty-first century has made it
increasingly difficult to keep up with the empirical and theoretical developments in the
literature (Podsakoff et al., 2000). This paper aims to address these research gaps by
presenting a sequential account of the growth of OCB. In light of this, suggestions for
future research that could further the understanding of the nature of the concept
are provided.
2. Methodology
Articles about OCB are spread out among several journals that fall into the categories of
organizational behavior, psychology, and management, among others. Significant studies
that were related to OCB were identified by searching different databases for different
materials to be used. The following databases were used and searched for relevant
publications from the 1930s to the present (2017): EBSCOhost, Scopus, Emerald Insight,
JSTOR, Science Direct, Taylor and Francis, Questia, Elsevier, Springer, and Google
Scholar. The research process was limited to journals that were peer-reviewed and were
based on the keywords “organizational citizenship behavior,” “antecedents of OCB,”
“dimensions of OCB,” “prosocial behavior and OCB,” “helping behavior and OCB,”
“communication and OCB,” “trust and OCB,” “1930s and OCB,” “1940s and OCB,” “1950s
and OCB,” “1960s and OCB,” “1970s and OCB,” “1980s and OCB,” “1990s and OCB,” “OCB
in the 21st century,” “OCB and 2000s,” “history of OCB,” and “OCB historical
development.” The full content of the different papers was examined in order to eliminate
those that were of no relevance and to determine important information that can be used
in the review.
Figure 1 shows the top five journals used in the review. These journals consist of the Development
following: Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of of OCB and its
Personality and Social Psychology, Administrative Science Quarterly, and Human implications
Performance. We used 134 journals from different sources and used a total of 267 articles.
As shown in Figure 2, most journal articles used in the review were published during
2000-2009, followed by those published from 2010 to 2017, and finally, from 1990 to 1999.
Since OCB has been introduced in the late 1970s, we can gather that OCB has become a 823
popular field despite being a relatively young concept.
Figure 3, on the other hand, shows the most commonly used publishers. The group used
34 publishers from different sources and used a total of 52 publications. The top publishers
used in the review are Wiley and Sage Publications.
35
30
25
Academy of Management
Journal
20 Administrative Science
Quarterly
Human Performance
15 Journal of Applied Psychology
Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology
10
5 Figure 1.
Top five
academic/scientific
0 journals used
Number of Journal Articles
90
80
70
60 1930-1939
1940-1949
50 1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
40
1980-1989
1990-1999
30 2000-2009
2010-2017
20
Figure 2.
10
OCB development
according to
0 publication (journals)
Decade Published
PR 10
47,4 9
8 Academic Press
7 Harvard University Press
6 JAI Press
Kogan Page Publishers
5
Prentice Hall
4
824 3
Routledge
Sage Publications
2 Wiley
Figure 3. 1
Top publishers used 0
Number of Publications
Meanwhile, Figure 4 indicates that the most commonly used books were published during
1960-1969. This decade saw sociologists studying the interactions and relationships of
individuals between and within groups.
The review also included working papers and dissertations which served as tertiary
references. These papers were referred to by a number of relevant journal articles and were
chosen because of their relevance to the review.
Following the review of articles, the next section is dedicated to the categorization of these
articles in terms of the historical development of OCB and its implications in the twenty-first
century. The existing literature is classified and analyzed in different decades in order to examine
the gradual development of the field of OCB. This study attempts to contribute to the literature
by sequentially identifying the progress in the field and to direct future research efforts.
3. Development of OCB
The study of OCB has undergone several developments over the past decades. Since its
introduction in 1983, more than 30 different forms of OCB have been identified by a number
of researchers (Podsakoff et al., 2000). As we can see in the following sections, however, the
concept of OCB was slow to evolve.
14
12
10 1930-1939
1940-1949
1950-1959
8
1960-1969
1970-1979
6 1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
4 2010-2016
Figure 4. 2
OCB development
according to
publication (books) 0
Decade Published
3.1 1930-1939: the human relations era Development
Organ et al. (2006) indicated that the ideas related to OCB emerged from the satisfaction- of OCB and its
productivity argument of the late 1930s. This period was called the “human relations era” implications
because of the prevailing human relations movement ( Judge et al., 2001). Hoppock (1935)
defined satisfaction as the combination of the psychological and social conditions in the
workplace that produces an overall positive feeling toward the job and the organization.
During this time, it was generally presumed that employee satisfaction influenced 825
productivity (Organ et al., 2005). However, empirical research during this period found little
basis for this assumption.
According to Naidu (1996), scholars were first made aware of the connection between
satisfaction and performance through Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger’s Hawthorne
Studies, which occurred during 1924-1933. Regarded as the most significant exploration of
the human aspect of industrial relations in the early twentieth century, Hawthorne studies
marked the beginning of relating ergonomics, design, and productivity to the study of
job satisfaction.
The Hawthorne studies extensively investigated ways to enhance productivity in the
Western Electrical Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago. Originally, Mayo and
Roethlisberger sought to find how various conditions (i.e. workplace illumination) could
affect employee productivity as a consequence of the issues that arose from Taylor’s (1911)
scientific perspectives on management. Instead, they, later on, found that employees’
productivity increased when they feel valued by the organization. Because this proved that
employees work not just for the compensation they receive, but scholars studied other
factors that could also lead to better employee performance (i.e. satisfaction).
Many believe that the Hawthorne studies conducted from the 1920s until early 1930s
emphasized the socio-psychological aspects of human behavior in institutions (Muldoon,
2012). In 1939, Roethlisberger and Dickson’s (1939) management and the worker provided
an account of the Hawthorne studies as they took place. Organ et al. (2006) reported that
Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) distinguished between formal and informal organization
within an institution. However, Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939, p. 562) stated that
informal groups “exist as a necessary condition for collaboration.”
When Barnard (1938) discussed a theory of organization based on his conception of
cooperative systems, he came up with the notion of individuals’ inclination to work together
to achieve organizational goals. This perspective is banked on the idea of an individual
choosing independently to participate in a formal system of cooperation. Although Barnard
(1938) stressed the importance of cooperation in organizations, a significant amount of time
would pass before it becomes the basis from which the construct of OCB would appear.
3.2 1940-1949: the Second World War

The 1940s saw the conflicts and damage brought about by the Second World War. The First
World War (1914-1918) had greatly destabilized Europe, particularly Germany’s political
and economic instability. This set the stage for another international conflict: the Second
World War (1939-1945), which proved even more devastating than the First World War
because it involved more than 30 countries and resulted in more than 80 million military and
civilian deaths.
The Second World War was perhaps the most significant period of the twentieth
century. It brought about major leaps in technology and laid the groundwork that permitted
post-war social changes, including the end of European colonialism, the civil rights
movement in the USA, and the modern women’s rights movement. Because of this, most
scholars at the time focused on studying science development, education, religion,
democracy, colonialism, liberalism, controlled economy, caste and class, and racialism.
No published articles were of or related to OCB.
PR 3.3 1950-1959: birth of labor unions
47,4 The 1950s was a period of full employment, nearly complete utilization of equipment and
facilities, and heavy unionization. Herzberg et al. (1957) stated that greater insight into
workers’ attitudes toward their jobs was urgently needed at the time due to the widespread
presence of slowdowns, the filing of grievances, and strikes. Scholars focused their attention
on individuals’ job satisfaction due to the belief that it was directly connected to better
826 organizational efficiency.
Tsui and Wang (2002) mentioned that aside from supporting the employer-employee
exchange relationship that was first introduced by Barnard (1938), March and Simon (1958)
also proposed the inducements-contributions model. This framework states that there is a
reciprocal exchange between employees’ individual contributions and the incentives offered by
organizations. Workers are satisfied when they feel that they receive higher rewards for their
contributions. For organizations, on the other hand, employee contributions are necessary for
workers to receive organizational inducements. The inducements-contributions model would
eventually become one of the foundations toward understanding employer-organization
relationships (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002).
On the other hand, Festinger (1950) proposed group cohesion theory which describes
group members’ disposition to display greater readiness to assist and support their
colleagues. Gross (1954) found that members of well-integrated groups tend to be in a
positive state of mind. According to Becker and Dan O’Hair (2007), this is because cohesive
groups encourage positive and collaborative relationships among the members. Since
people view such connections in high regard, group members are likely to be ready to
accommodate and give support to their colleagues (Schacter et al., 1951). The concept of
group cohesion would, later on, become one of the most significant variables related to
OCB (Beal et al., 2004; Aoyagi et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2009; Ehrhart et al., 2009).
Scholars in the 1950s also studied the importance of morale by determining the link
between performance and work attitudes. Seashore (1954) and Whyte (1961) argued that
among all the attitudes, performance is positively connected to the degree of pride felt by
employees toward their respective organizations.
The concept of employee satisfaction once again arose when Viteles (1953) likened
motivation to workers’ performance and morale. Viteles (1953) concluded that a highly
productive worker views his job positively, thus, employee morale or satisfaction became a
key variable of interest to researchers. According to Latham (2007), the phrases job
satisfaction and morale during this period were sometimes used interchangeably, until
Guion (1958) and Stagner (1958) argued for a distinction between the two concepts.
Armstrong (2006) declared that today, satisfaction refers to an individual’s outlook toward
his job, while morale implies a degree of group cohesiveness.
Shokrkon and Naami (2009) declared that a major breakthrough occurred when
Brayfield and Crockett (1955) published the most influential narrative article on the
satisfaction-performance relationship. Having analyzed studies linking employee
satisfaction to performance, Brayfield and Crockett (1955) deduced that these elements
had a “minimal or no relationship” (p. 405). This may be due to the availability of a limited
number of published studies at that time. Despite this, several researchers frequently cited
the authors in this field of study prior to 1985.
Among all the other reviews that were inspired by Brayfield and Crockett (1955),
Herzberg et al. (1959) were the most optimistic about the satisfaction-performance
relationship. According to their two-factor theory, two different groups of factors affect job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction. They believed that employees are motivated to perform well
in their work when their individual needs have been satisfied (Davar and Ranju, 2012). This
is in contrast to the findings of Triandis (1959), who claimed that there was a negative
correlation between satisfaction and performance. Although Vroom (1964) seconded
Herzberg’s interpretation, Ewen (1964), Ewen et al. (1966), Dunnette and Kirchner (1965), and Development
Quinn and Kahn (1967) supported Triandis’ (1959) conclusion. of OCB and its
Due to the absence of a significant link between job satisfaction and performance, implications
scholars shifted their focus to the connection between job attitudes and workers’
discretionary behaviors of doing things for their colleagues that are outside of their formal
responsibilities (Bewley, 2012). Managers asserted that employees with good morale are
willing to do more than what is required of them. Because such behavior affects 827
productivity, scholars may have been encouraged to look into the relationship between
these variables.
3.4 1960-1969: birth of OCB as a field

The 1960s gave way to the emergence of the field of organizational behavior. Real (1962)
affirmed that during this period, scholars started to investigate the importance of the
various aspects of the superior-subordinate relationship. Because of this, intellectual
attention went into trying to classify behavior and their causes. Investigations regarding
employees’ attitudes and their voluntary, “helping” behavior went on during this period.
It was at this time that scholars started giving a name to the discretionary behavior of
helping out one’s colleagues.

For instance, Katz (1964) pointed out that since organizations expect their employees to
display reliable behaviors that align with their obligatory task requirements, it is also
important that workers exhibit “innovative and spontaneous behavior” that goes beyond
role requirements. Kumar (2014) mentioned that this is because these kinds of behaviors
respond to the demand of unanticipated contingencies. Therefore, they are still essential to
the organization’s overall effectiveness (Zhang and Liao, 2009; Kasa and Hassan, 2015).
According to Katz and Kahn (1966), every institution relies on discretionary behaviors
that accommodate the needs of others. Hence, organizational members who engage in
extra-role and/or voluntary behaviors contribute to organizational effectiveness (Katz and
Kahn, 1965).
However, it can be observed that the literature concerning the relationship between
individuals’ morale and job performance, yielded contradictory results. Weakliem and
Frankel (2006), for one, construed from Plata (1966) that morale greatly affects productivity.
Lawler and Porter (1965), on the other hand, inferred that performance had a greater
influence on morale instead of the other way around. McGregor (1960) and Bass (1965)
discovered that organizational performance is reflected on how workers experience their
work and their work environment.
Building on Emery and Trist’s (1960) notion that organizational performance depends on
how consistent an institution’s technical and social formations are, Likert (1961) posited that
focusing our attention to the physical and socio-emotional needs of employees results in
organizational productivity and efficiency. This is because employees feel satisfied when their
needs are addressed. Whyte (1961) and Argyris (1964) indicated that an institution
adopting a positive social environment can expect high levels of employee satisfaction.
Following this logic, employee satisfaction is now believed to significantly affect the
development of how employees behave toward their work, their coworkers, and organizations
(Locke, 1969).
Zand et al. (1969) recounted that the association between superiors and subordinates in
organizations was thoroughly examined. Scholars during this period wanted to determine the
degree of influence of such connections with interpersonal and group responsibilities
(Zand, 1972). Maier et al. (1963) stressed that scholars mainly found that employer-employee
relationships had a direct impact on how employees openly communicated workplace-related
concerns. According to Yildirim (2014), the degree of employees’ openness to communicate
with their superiors is significantly correlated with OCB.
PR Although Homans (1958) is credited with using the idea of individualism to describe the
47,4 exchange processes that people engage in, Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory (SET)
became the most popular hypothetical framework used in studying OCB. According to Blau
(1964), economic and social exchanges are just some of the incentives offered by
organizations. Moideenkutty (2005) stated that Blau (1964) defined economic exchange as
focusing more on the tangible and financial aspect of the exchange while social exchange
828 focused on the socio-emotional aspect. According to Gouldner (1960), reciprocity is the
center of social exchange – that is, people tend to help those who help them. Because of this,
Blau (1964) asserted that motivating employees through extrinsic and intrinsic satisfiers
leads them to reciprocate by going beyond formal task requirements.
3.5 1970-1979: advocating positive and dynamic workplace

The 1970s was the decade wherein inflation skyrocketed and foreign competition grew
stronger. Because of this, employees found themselves either unemployed or at risk of losing
their jobs. They were unmotivated to perform well, and this greatly affected organizational
effectiveness (Parry and Tyson, 2013).
In response to this, Eby et al. (2015) proclaimed that 1970s saw researchers investigating
OCB in relation to advocating a positive and dynamic workplace for workers. Kegan and
Rubenstein (1973) assumed that this was due to the belief that a positive social organizational
environment fosters creativity and communication among employees, which yields positive
organizational results (Kegan, 1971). Based on Chan and Lai’s (2017) findings, communication
would afterward become a strong predictor of OCB.
During this period, several studies confirmed that trust plays a crucial role in
communication. Scholars examined trust in relation to organizational culture, leadership
behaviors, supervisor characteristics, and leader-member traits ( Jones et al., 1975; Lind and
Tyler, 1988). Lewis and Weigert (1985) opined that this decade started the establishment of
trust as an invaluable aspect of social relationships. Wong et al. (2006) and Singh and
Srivastava (2009) would, later on, prove the impact of trust in stimulating employees to
engage in OCB.
Batson et al. (1991) said that the term “prosocial behavior” was first devised in the 1970s,
and ideas related to prosocial behavior were included in the studies of behavior in work
organizations at the time. Although considerable attention was allocated in this field during
the mid-1960s (e.g. Berkowitz and Connor, 1966; Goranson and Berkowitz, 1966; Berkowitz
and Daniels, 1963, 1964), Wispe (1972) stated that there has been no precise definition on
what prosocial behavior truly meant. Leeds (1963) merely observed the norm of giving while
Aronfreed (1968) conceptualized the development of conscience. Most of the attention also
went into investigating the factors that lead to individuals wanting to help out their
colleagues, such as the nature of requests (Harris and Bays, 1973), moods (Macaulay and
Berkowitz, 1970), sex (Benson et al., 1976), attractiveness (Bull and Stevens, 1980),
self-awareness (Berkowitz, 1987), anonymity (Schwartz and Gottlieb, 1976; Petty et al., 1977),
group size (Darley and Latane, 1968), circumstances surrounding the situation (Latane and
Darley, 1970), and physical appearance of the person asking for help (Piliavin et al., 1975;
Harrell, 1978; Raymond and Unger, 1972). From this, Dion et al. (1972) and Juhnke et al.
(2001) deduced that the concept of helping behavior was guided by people’s motivations,
social stigma/expectations, and perceived social conditions.
According to Staub (2013), the concept of prosocial behavior originated from the helping
behaviors displayed by employees toward those who relied upon them in the achievement of
their goals. It would eventually be directly linked to the study of OCB (Davila and
Finkelstein, 2011).
Kanter (1968) defined commitment after discovering from Becker (1960) that there has
been very minimal formal analysis on the idea of commitment. Despite the fact that this
occurred in the 1960s, it was only in 1970s that the concept was related to workplace Development
behavior. Hall et al. (1970) took commitment to mean the high degree of congruence between of OCB and its
organizational and individual goals. This was later supported by Sheldon (1971), Marsh and implications
Mannari (1977), Koch and Steers (1978), Stevens et al. (1978), Mowday et al. (1979),
Allen and Meyer (1990), and Meyer and Allen (1991). We can also summarize from Hrebiniak
and Alutto’s (1972) and Buchanan’s (1974) findings that they also believe that organizational
commitment refers to the level of employee attachment to the establishment. Schein (1970) 829
and Steers (1977) recommended the usefulness of commitment in specifying and measuring
organizational effectiveness after it was noted that highly committed employees perform
better than less committed ones. Hassani and Boroujerdi (2013) subsequently concluded that
organizational commitment is significantly linked with OCB.
Tharikh et al. (2016) disclosed that a major development came when Organ (1977)
reinterpreted and reassessed the relationship between satisfaction and performance.
According to Jha and Jha (2010), this prompted practitioners and researchers at the time to
want to interpret what caused employees to casually go above and beyond their job
descriptions. In his paper, Organ (1977) suggested the use of the name “OCB” to describe
this type of behavior. This was then linked to job satisfaction, which became the leading
indicator of OCB for the next decades to come (Smith et al., 1983). Organ (1997) used “OCB”
to describe the behaviors displayed by employees in the context of job satisfaction and
performance (e.g. self-improvement efforts, and cooperation). However, no official definition
was provided for the term as of this period.
In 2006, Organ narrated that he first encountered the notion of “OCB” when he studied
the works on Japanese management (e.g. Ouchi, 1980). Organ et al. (2006) believed that
Japanese organizations in the 1960s and 1970s were highly successful due to the voluntary
behavior displayed by their employees in the workplace. Because of this, Organ got the
idea that it would help American organizations if he informed them of the secret behind
this accomplishment.
3.6 1980-1989: period of relating OCB with other dimensions

The 1980s saw great socioeconomic change due to advances in technology and increased
economic liberalization. Consistent with this is the higher level of productivity exhibited by
employees. Farooqui (2012) stated that researchers during this period have found some
compelling insights in organizational settings, although Schwab (1980) opined that the
literature has focused more on comprehending organizational citizenship in relation to other
constructs, instead of carefully expounding on what citizenship behavior truly is.
Smith et al. (1983) stated that what was then yet known as “citizenship behavior”
stimulated the interest of researchers precisely because it is discretionary and thus, cannot
be easily governed nor measured. They thought that citizenship behavior is just one form of
prosocial behavior that helps an organization function better. They also believed that
citizenship behavior had two types (i.e. altruism, which are behaviors targeted at helping
individuals, and generalized compliance, which reflect compliance with normal rules
and regulations), and that satisfaction directly affected the manifestation of this kind
of behavior.
Graham (1986) recommended a third type of employee contributions that are relevant to
the accomplishment of organizational goals. He called it “civic virtue,” and defined it as the
responsible participation in organizational governance.
Bateman and Organ (1983) officiated the use of the term “OCB” and related it to various
dimensions of organizational performance. Because of this, Organ (1988, p. 4) concretely
defined OCB as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly
recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective
functioning of the organization.” He pointed out the importance of aggregating individual
PR contributions for OCB to directly affect performance. With this, Organ (1988) identified five
47,4 dimensions of OCB which will become the bases for other dimensions that will be created in
the future: altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, civic virtue, and sportsmanship.
3.6.1 Altruism. Even though altruism was made an official dimension in 1988, it has
already been used in preceding works that would lead to the coining of OCB. For one,
Smith et al. (1983) defined altruism as a form of prosocial behavior. Since there have been no
830 precise definitions of prosocial behavior, Brief and Motowidlo (1986) generally defined that
prosocial behavior as voluntary behavior intended to benefit the recipient.
Organ (1988) also defined altruism as an act of voluntary assistance to coworkers.
He elaborated that an altruistic employee displays selfless concern for the welfare of his
coworkers, supervisors, and other people within the organization. From then on, altruism
has been connected to different antecedents, determinants, and concepts alike in the
succeeding works related to OCB (e.g. Vieten et al., 2006).
One of these studies is the review paper of Podsakoff et al. (2000) wherein he and his
colleagues demonstrated that altruism is significantly related to performance evaluations and
positive affectivity. On the same year, Pare and Tremblay (2000) indicated that altruism is
considered as one of the most important dimensions of OCB since altruistic actions
(e.g. helping a colleague who has been absent, helping coworkers with heavy workloads, being
mindful of the effects of one’s actions toward others, providing new employees support)
clearly reflect the level of interest that an employee has toward his work environment.
Furthermore, Yen and Niehoff (2004) voiced out that altruism also engenders teamwork
and cooperation. This leads to an increase of available knowledge for employees as well as
an increase in work system efficiency since a worker’s slack time can be utilized to help
another on a certain task.
3.6.2 Conscientiousness. Organ (1988) defined conscientiousness as the extent of one’s
dedication to the job that exceeds formal requirements (e.g. working long hours,
volunteering to perform other tasks aside from routine duties). Studies have revealed that
conscientiousness can be related to organizational politics among employees (McCrae and
Costa, 1987). Kidder and Parks (2001) posited that males are more likely to engage in
conscientious behavior than females in view of the fact that males have a greater preference
for equity over equality.
Konovsky and Organ (1996) found out that conscientiousness was significantly
interrelated to all types and facets of OCB. Conscientiousness increases managers’ efficiency
and effectiveness in the performance of their duties. MacKenzie et al. (2001) explained that
this is because highly conscientious employees engage in decreased intergroup conflict.
Barrick and Mount (1991) supported that since highly conscientious individuals exceed the
minimum roles required of them by the organization, they generally perform better at work
than individuals who are low in conscientiousness.
Conscientiousness is also used to indicate that a particular individual is organized,
accountable and hardworking. In the dimension of the Big Five model, it was found as the
strongest predictor of an employee’s extra-role performance. According to Yen and Niehoff
(2004), more conscientious employees stay informed and up-to-date about products and/or
services being offered. Individuals who are highly conscientious require minimum oversight
since they abide by the law, faithfully and carefully follow the rules and regulations of the
workplace, and make sure that their responsibilities are fulfilled (Morgeson et al., 2005).
Moreover, since they are diligent, responsible, and competent, these individuals are more
inclined to take initiative in problem solving and are more systematic and comprehensive in
their work (Witt et al., 2002).
3.6.3 Courtesy. Courtesy includes behaviors that focus on the prevention of problems and
taking the necessary steps so as to lessen the effects of the problem in the future (Organ, 1988).
This includes gestures that help prevent the occurrence of interpersonal problems, such as Development
respect, civil behavior, and politeness (Organ, 1990a, b, 1997). Courteous employees make sincere of OCB and its
efforts to avoid problems from arising for their coworkers (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997). implications
Research has shown that individuals displaying courteous acts minimize intergroup
conflicts. Because of this, managers become more efficient in their tasks (Podsakoff et al., 2000).
Courtesy makes employees want to avoid actions that will make their colleagues’ work
unnecessarily harder. It also includes giving sufficient amount of preparation time for their 831
colleagues should there be additions to existing workload (Tambe and Shanker, 2014).
3.6.4 Civic virtue. Civic virtue is defined as the constructive participation of employees in
an organization’s political life and supporting its administrative functions (Deluga, 1998).
It refers to workers’ responsibility to participate in the management of the firm, such as
attending meetings and keeping up with organizational changes (Organ, 1988). This
dimension of OCB is actually derived from Graham (1991), who asserted that employees are
responsible for being good organizational citizens. Civic virtue reflects the extent of how
employees recognize themselves as part of the institution and how they accept work-related
responsibilities in terms of dutiful participation, and active involvement and concern about
the company (Podsakoff et al., 1990, 2000).

Other researchers have found that civic virtue enhances performance quality, thus
leading to reduced customer complaints (Walz and Niehoff, 1996). Because employees are
concerned about the welfare of the company, organizations consider civic virtue to be an
important aspect of OCB. Employees displaying civic virtue (e.g. attending non-required
meetings, taking initiative for organizational improvements, supporting organizational
changes) are highly valued by institutions (Graham, 2000).
3.6.5 Sportsmanship. According to Castro et al. (2004) and Mohammad et al. (2011),
sportsmanship is characterized as the degree of determination to endure challenging work
environment, and tolerance of suboptimal circumstances. It refers to the level of employees’
willingness to tolerate less-than-ideal organizational situations without complaining and
sacrificing one’s own personal interest.
Organ (1988) defined sportsmanship as the behavior of warmly tolerating the irritations
that are an unavoidable part of nearly every organizational setting. Podsakoff and
MacKenzie (1997) revealed that good sportsmanship enhances the morale of the work group
and subsequently reduces employee turnover.
A year after Organ defined OCB, Graham (1989) also created his own four dimensions
based on Organ’s definition. These dimensions include interpersonal helping, individual
initiative, personal industry, and loyal boosterism.
Interpersonal helping is when an employee assists a co-employee in cases of emergencies
or when the co-worker asks for help. Individual initiative, on the other hand, is displayed by
an employee when he promotes communication in order to improve the team and
organizational performance. Meanwhile, the personal industry has the closest definition to
Organ’s (1988) altruism, and Graham (1989) defined it as the behavior wherein an employee
performs a specific task beyond what the employer expected from them. According to
Moorman and Blakely (1995), employees display loyal boosterism when they promote the
organization’s reputation and image to others.
Based on Blau’s (1964) study wherein workers are assumed to reciprocate employers’
fairness through the portrayal of OCB, Organ (1988) indicated that the level of employee
performance and employee rewards were loosely connected. Organ (1988) explained that
employees who display extra-role behaviors are expected to have higher rewards since
institutions benefit from employees’ OCB. Organ and Konovsky (1989) stated that
when workers continue to cooperate voluntarily over time, organizational effectiveness is
expected to double.
PR 3.7 1990-2000: the knowledge age
47,4 The late twentieth century is known as the period of major social, economic, and political
reforms. Known as the “Knowledge Age,” knowledge and ideas became the primary source
of economic growth and were highly valued than concrete resources.
When Organ (1988) officially defined OCB, he also brought up five dimensions that
employees usually display as a sign of the behavior. However, just a couple of years later,
832 Organ added “peacekeeping” and “cheerleading” to the original five dimensions (Podsakoff
et al., 1997). Employees display peacekeeping when they try to mediate between conflicting
parties and enact solutions to differences. On the other hand, cheerleading occurs when
workers praise and encourage their coworkers so as to promote a harmonious and joyful
work environment (Organ, 1990a, b).
Despite this, Podsakoff et al. (1997) stated that questions regarding the impact of OCB
on the overall performance of an organization surfaced. They explained that this was due
to the fact that there was little empirical attention validating the truthfulness of this
assumption. Although over 160 articles have been reported to identify the antecedents of
OCB, only five have tried to test whether OCB can truly influence organizational
effectiveness (Podsakoff et al., 1997).
Karambayya (1991) was the first to observe that high-performing employees are usually
satisfied, and because of this, they manifest more OCB than low-performing employees.
Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994) agreed with this observation and pointed out that OCB is
considered to influence approximately 17 percent of variances in the performance level
of organizations.
However, although Karambayya’s (1991) and Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1994)
studies have encouraging results, limitations were still present. For one, Karambayya
(1991) was said to be subjective and biased in measuring employee performance, while
Podsakoff’s et al. (1990) results left some doubts regarding the connection between OCB
and organizational performance.
In spite of this, the 1990s started and established the exploration and use of dimensions
in relation to the study of OCB. A variation of the five-factor model developed by Organ
(1988) became the focus of most OCB conceptualizations (e.g. Leephaijaroen, 2016). As a
matter of fact, since Organ (1988) introduced the five dimensions that characterize OCB,
many researchers created other dimensions which were or were not related to Organ.
One example of this is the six-dimension scale developed by Lin (1991), which includes
identification with the organization, harmony, assistance to colleagues, discipline,
righteousness, and self-improvement. Williams and Anderson (1991) later on categorized
OCB in terms of the targeted party of the behavior. They divided and organized OCB into
two dimensions, which are OCB directed toward individuals (OCBI) and OCB directed
toward the organization (OCBO). In this case, Van Dyne et al. (1995) stated that Organ’s
(1988) original five dimensions can be classified into OCBI and OCBO: altruism and courtesy
comprise OCBI, while OCBO is composed of civic virtue, conscientiousness, and
sportsmanship. Van Dyne et al. (1994) also introduced another three dimensions, and
these were obedience, loyalty, and participation.
In the year 2000, Podsakoff et al. (2000) came up with 30 potential dimensions of OCB
based on the studies conducted in the previous years. These dimensions are organized into
seven common themes: helping behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty,
organizational compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue, and self-development.
3.7.1 Helping behavior. Helping behavior or helpfulness refers to the voluntary actions of
employees for the betterment of the organization and the individuals surrounding it.
It focuses on voluntarily helping others with work-related problems. According to
Podsakoff et al. (2000), helping behavior is comprised of the following traits: altruism,
peacemaking, and cheerleading (Organ, 1988), OCBI (Williams and Anderson, 1991),
interpersonal facilitation (Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996), and George and Brief’s (1992) Development
constructs of helping others. These categorizations were confirmed under the works of of OCB and its
MacKenzie et al. (1993), Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994), and Podsakoff et al. (1997). implications
3.7.2 Sportsmanship. In addition to Organ’s (1988) definition of sportsmanship,
Podsakoff et al. (2000) also said that sportsmanship characterizes the act of professionally
accepting defeat and rejection, giving positive responses when suggestions are not accepted,
and selflessly sacrificing personal interest for the group’s success. Despite this, the authors 833
expressed that this dimension is given lesser attention compared to the other dimensions
that have been identified. Empirical research done by MacKenzie and his colleagues in the
year 1993 to 1999 found out that these dimensions do not have similarities with other
researchers’ dimensions and are therefore given its own category.
3.7.3 Organizational loyalty. Organizational loyalty is described as the behavior
manifested by employees in aiding the organization as well as defending and protecting it
from external and internal threats (Podsakoff et al., 2000). It entails employee commitment to
the organization for the better or for worse, and is composed of loyal boosterism and
organizational loyalty (Graham, 1989, 1991), spreading goodwill and protecting the
organization (George and Brief, 1992; George and Jones, 1997), and endorsing, supporting,
and defending organizational objectives (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993, 1997). Although
some of the empirical studies have studied the distinctiveness of organizational loyalty from
other dimensions, many have failed to prove it. Podsakoff et al. (2000) suggested that further
research should be conducted regarding organizational loyalty.
3.7.4 Organizational compliance. Organizational compliance is one of the oldest
dimensions studied in the field of citizenship behavior. This dimension was identified by
Smith et al. (1983) as generalized compliance while Graham (1991) and Williams and
Anderson (1991) classified it as organizational obedience and OCBO, respectively. In 1993,
Borman and Motowidlo (1993) defined organizational compliance as the compliance with
organizational rules and procedures. Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) job dedication is
also considered part of organizational compliance.
3.7.5 Individual initiative. Individual initiative refers to the voluntary action of
employees to perform something or behave in a certain way without being told. It shares
some similarities with that of Organ’s (1988) conscientiousness, Moorman and Blakely’s
(1995) individual initiative, Borman and Motowidlo’s (1993, 1997) enthusiasm and
volunteerism, George and Brief’s (1992), George and Jones’ (1997), and Morrison and Phelps’
(1999) constructive suggestions, and some part of Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) job
dedication. This dimension is very rarely used in OCB empirical works because the
individual initiative is difficult to differentiate from in-role task performance. Some scholars
believe that employees display initiative when they are required to do so (cf. Motowidlo
et al., 1997; Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996). Therefore, some scholars do not include this
dimension in their studies (cf. Podsakoff et al., 1993; Mackenzie et al., 1993).
3.7.6 Civic virtue. Civic virtue, according to Organ (1988), is a behavior in which
employees actively contribute to the peace and harmony within the organization
and its overall success. Podsakoff et al. (2000) defined civic virtue as the degree
of employees’ commitment and full interest in the organization and its activities.
This dimension includes organizational participation and protecting the organization
(George and Brief, 1992).
3.7.7 Self-development. The last dimension identified by Podsakoff et al. (2000) was
self-development. Inspired by Katz (1964), George and Brief (1992) identified self-development
as the most important dimension of citizenship behavior. Here, employees commit and give
effort toward improving themselves, such as participating in seminars and self-development
programs conducted by the institution (George and Brief, 1992). However, even if it was
PR identified as the key dimension of OCB, little to no empirical research was conducted about the
47,4 extent to which self-development directly affects the organization.
On the other hand, Dewett and Denisi (2007) stated that 30 potential dimensions of OCB
have already been considered in some literature but are not yet explored in recent studies.
For their part, Coleman and Borman (2000) have been said to have categorized the original
five dimensions into three: interpersonal, organizational, and job/task conscientiousness.
834 Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) distinguished the interpersonal and motivational
behaviors and suggested that there are only two categories of OCB: interpersonal
facilitation and job dedication.
According to Dewett and Denisi (2007), the dimensions of OCB are categorized based on
two types of behavior: maintenance citizenship behavior and change-related citizenship
behavior. Altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, cheerleading, compliance, sportsmanship,
goodwill, and other behaviors that promote longevity of support relationships comprise
maintenance citizenship behavior. Meanwhile, change-related behaviors include advocacy,
participation, individual and personal initiative, innovation, leadership, and other behaviors
that are future-oriented and that suggest organizational improvement. However, these
behaviors have been faced with critiques and uncertainties and are therefore neglected in
other explorations.
Aside from the dimensions presented earlier, OCB has also been connected with the
antecedent of organizational justice (Moorman, 1991; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993).
According to Eisenberger et al. (1990) and Moorman et al. (1998), organizational justice refers
to the extent to which employees perceive the fairness of the nature of workplace
procedures, interactions, and outcomes. It focuses on how individuals socially construct
incidents of justice and injustice. Baldwin (2006) construed fairness to be a largely subjective
context, which captures more basic elements of the social structure.
A leadership act is fair in the eyes of employees when they perceive it as just and thus,
respond accordingly. Organizational justice in this sense is subjective – what might be
perceived as just by one person may be perceived as unjust by another. However, justice is
also socially constructed; therefore coherent, long-standing groups (such as employee
groups) often develop shared conceptions of what constitutes justice (Bies, 1987; Lind and
Tyler, 1988; Tyler and Lind, 1992; Tyler and Smith, 1999).
In addition to this, Jafari and Bidarian (2012) mentioned that psychologists and scholars
have identified in theory and research three different aspects of organizational justice:
distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice (which include informational
and interpersonal justice). The first two aspects are structural forms of justice while the
third one is of a social form. These aspects have developed chronologically, with distributive
justice being the earliest aspect identified and examined, followed by procedural justice and
interactional justice. A new identity-oriented dimension called “relational justice” is
emerging from the interactional justice perspective.
Distributive justice refers to the level of how outcomes being distributed are proportional
to inputs – the so-called equity principle (Adams, 1965). This theory was taken from a
broader context of social exchange: a two-way transaction wherein each party offers
something to the table and receives something in return. During the 1970s, works on
distributive justice showed that distributive fairness judgments are ubiquitous and are
influential determinants of satisfaction, along with conflict resolution and allocation
(Lind and Tyler, 1988). Earliest works suggested that only favorable decisions were just
decisions, which later research proved to be erroneous.
During the 1970s, scholars began an empirical examination of procedural justice in
organizations. Justice, from this perspective, is defined in terms of fair procedures: just
decisions are those that result from fair procedures (Poole, 2007). People are more likely to
perceive that a decision is fair if they feel they have had a voice or a sense of process control Development
(opportunity to influence the decision maker), and they are more likely to accept unfavorable of OCB and its
outcomes when they perceive that the process of arriving at the decision was fair implications
(Greenberg, 1990; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997; Folger and
Cropanzano, 1998, 2001).
Interactional justice, as defined by Folger and Cropanzano (1998), refers to the quality of
the interpersonal treatment received by an individual, both before and after decisions. 835
Interactional justice was classified into two subparts: interpersonal justice and information
justice. Interpersonal sensitivity refers to the notion that fair judgment should be civil and
respectful. It takes into account the sensitivity and fairness on the way that information is
communicated. On the other hand, informational justice relates to the quality of the
explanation that is given to employees on why a specific outcome occurred.
Well-designed systems that promote organizational justice do not only benefit the
individual but also the organization. This is because individual employees become
satisfied and pleased for being fairly treated. Hence, organizations are able to maintain
control over potential challenges and threats from its staff while reaping the benefits of
being an employer.
Furthermore, according to Singh and Singh (2009), the emergence of the five-factor model
of personality – more commonly known as the “Big Five” – in the early 1990s added greater
opportunities for studying the field of OCB. Although it was McDougall (1932) who first
pointed out that personality may be classified into five (i.e. intellect, character, temperament,
disposition, and temper), Norman (1963) and Barrick and Mount (1991) confirmed the
most important factors based on Tupes and Christal’s (1961) work, and these are
extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, and openness to experience.
Voluminous studies have been carried out on OCB-personality relationship (e.g. Organ
and Lingl, 1995; Penner et al., 1997; Tsaousis, 1996; Mount et al., 1998; John and Srivastava,
1999; Witt et al., 2002). Although Organ (1990a, b) suggested that there might be a link
between employees’ personality and OCB, there exist conflicting results. Organ (1994)
found little evidence to support this relationship, while Organ and Ryan (1995), Konovsky
and Organ (1996), Hogan et al. (1998), Neuman and Kickul (1998), Miller et al. (1999), and
Hurtz and Donovan (2000) report significant correlation between the variables.
Borman and Motowidlo (1993) noted that the basis for predicting a relationship between
OCBs and performance is generally theoretical rather than empirical during this period.
3.8 2001 to present: increased understanding of OCB

The development of OCB continues as multiple studies and meta-analyses have been
conducted to look at the relationship of OCBs with other antecedents and its overlapping
tendencies with similar constructs (i.e. contextual performance, prosocial organizational
behavior, extra-role behavior). According to Kataria et al. (2013), OCB’s proven significance
toward organizational effectiveness has garnered the attention of many academicians and
practitioners. OCB has become a leading topic in the literature and is considered important
and significantly researched. It has been linked to productivity and increased efficiency.
Employees displaying OCB has been found to go beyond their formal duties (Bateman and
Organ, 1983; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Graham, 1991; DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2001;
DiPaola and Hoy, 2005; Bogler and Somech, 2005). Many scholars have used published
theories in their studies to either prove or disprove findings from previous various studies.
Moreover, most of the OCB attention has focused on analyzing the individual level, giving
less attention to some analytical frameworks at the group level.
The breakthrough of the internet has paved the way for the emergence of the
knowledge-based economy. These advances in communications and technology influence
PR change at the organizational level. They also directly affect organization’s’ HR policies given
47,4 the changing patterns of employment (Horwitz and Jain, 2008). In such a technology-driven
society, organizations rely on the knowledge that is embedded deeply in the individual and
collective subconscious (Harrison and Kessels, 2004). According to Horwitz and Jain (2008),
when employees in knowledge-based economy recognize the “mutuality of interest” and
responsibility between them and the organizations, they display behaviors that benefit the
836 collective whole, which is known as OCB.
Despite the fact that much of the published studies conducted on OCB come from the
west, it is thought that OCB actually originated from Japan, although a significant period of
time passed before it appeared in Japanese research (Tanaka, 2013). A probable cause for
this delay is that voluntary behavior of doing what was best for the organization was
generally taken for granted. Tanaka (2013) stated that as a result, this kind of behavior
escaped the attention of Japanese researchers, up until when Nishida (1997) investigated this
behavior among Japanese employees for the first time.
OCB is widely believed to help improve an organization’s performance. Because of this,
much of the existing OCB literature has extensively studied when individuals display OCB
and what causes them to. Early research in particular frequently looked at attitudinal
variables, personality traits, task characteristics, and workplace-related elements as

antecedents to OCB (Bateman and Organ, 1983; George, 1991; Williams and Anderson, 1991;
Organ and Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996a, b, 2000; Pillai et al., 1999). Over time, a wide
array of determinants has been identified. Recent studies have investigated several other
factors such as other emerging concepts and disciplines that have been associated with
OCB. Moreover, these identified determinants, concepts, and disciplines that have been
associated with OCB are further explored under different contexts.
3.9 Antecedents/determinants of OCB

3.9.1 Job satisfaction. Despite dating back to 1970s, job satisfaction remains the most
notable antecedent of OCB. The current literature supports the assertion of past studies
regarding the direct link of job satisfaction to OCB, as can be proven by Koys (2001),
Yoon and Suh (2003), Schleicher et al. (2004), Gonzales and Garazo (2006), Foote and
Tang (2008), and Yee et al. (2008), who all found that satisfaction directly affects OCB.
According to Zeinabadi (2010), this is because satisfaction toward the different aspects of a
job encourages positive behavior among employees.
Vroom (1960) and Strauss (1968) stated that productivity can be enhanced by increasing
job satisfaction. The recent literature such as Allen and Rush (1998) and Van Bogaert et al.
(2013) also found that job satisfaction and performance are positively related. Chiu and Chen
(2005) discovered that job satisfaction has two facets: intrinsic (wherein workers are
satisfied with the job itself ) and extrinsic (wherein workers are satisfied with other elements
indirectly related to the job, such as work conditions and policies).
In spite of this, there were others who opposed the construction of job satisfaction as an
antecedent of OCB. Alotaibi (2001), for one, conducted a study about job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and perceptions of fairness in relation to OCB. He found out
that job satisfaction and organizational commitment had no direct effect on the behavior.
This is supported by Kim’s (2006) findings, wherein he examined the relationship between
motivation, job satisfaction, commitment, and OCB. Kim’s (2006) study revealed that
although there was a positive relationship between OCB, motivation, and commitment, the
direct association between OCB and job satisfaction was not confirmed. Clearly, more
research needs to be done about this in order to settle the confusion.
3.9.2 Employee engagement and job embeddedness. Saks (2006) stated that employee
engagement has recently become a popular term used by scholars. Researchers commonly
describe it as the emotional and rational dedication to the organization (Frank et al., 2004), and Development
is characterized by vigorous, involved, and effective work performance (Maslach et al., 2001). of OCB and its
Rurkkum and Bartlett (2012) declared employee engagement a determinant after implications
Saks (2006) found that it positively affects workers’ OCB. This was further supported by
Bakker et al. (2004, 2010, 2011) and Sridhar and Thiruvenkadam (2014) when they
observed that highly engaged employees involve themselves in behaviors that go beyond
formal work. 837
Lee et al. (2004) opined that job embeddedness can help predict OCB. Job embeddedness
refers to the degree of employee attachment to the organization and has three facets: social
connections to the institution and with its members, perceived fit with the organization, and
perceived benefits to be sacrificed should the worker leave the company (Wijayanto and
Kismono, 2004; Cho and Ryu, 2009). Lee et al. (2004) found that off-the-job embeddedness
more significantly predicts OCB compared to on-the-job embeddedness.
3.9.3 Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment refers to the degree of
identification with and involvement in the organization. Zheng et al. (2012) cited it as a
determinant of OCB since committed employees engage in behaviors that show and reaffirm
their support to the organization.

Wagner and Rush (2000), Gautam et al. (2005), and Pourgaz et al. (2015) found that
organizational commitment affects OCB. Organizational commitment is comprised of
affective commitment, normative commitment, and commitment continuance. Kim (2006)
found that affective commitment is positively related to altruism and compliance, while
Alotaibi (2001) discovered that organizational commitment does not influence OCB.
Paulin et al. (2006) studied how commitment to service and relates to customers’ interests.
They found that organizational commitment has a bigger influence on OCB as compared to
customer behavior.
On the other hand, Chen and Francesco (2003) examined the relationship between the
three components of commitment and employee performance, and they discovered that
while affective commitment has a positive effect on performance and OCB, this is not the
case with normative commitment. LePine et al. (2002) asserted that based on Feather and
Rauter’s (2004) and Rifai’s (2005) works, organizational commitment truly leads to
OCB, while Cropanzano et al. (2003) suggested that organizational commitment serves
as a moderating factor to OCB and performance. This is consistent with Foote and
Tang’s (2008) findings.
3.9.4 HR practices. In today’s highly competitive business environment, employees are
considered a source of competitive advantage. Because of this, researchers have looked
into HR practices as predictors of OCB. Shaw et al. (2009), for example, declared that
superior organizational performance depends on how workers exert effort in performing
their in-role and extra-role requirements. In connection with this, a strong line of research
agrees that HR practices are essential since they signal to employees that the organization
values them, and this gives rise to a feeling of obligation among employees to perform
their duties well for the benefit of the company (Organ et al., 2006; Sun et al., 2007;
Fu, 2013). Hence, adopting high-performance HR practices will pave the way for
employees to display OCB (Mukhtar et al., 2012). In spite of this, how these practices are
handled at the individual level is a matter that needs to be looked into since according to
Wilchez-Alzate (2009) and Lomoya et al. (2015), individuals may have varying perceptions
about the way the organization handles its rewards and recognition. This may have an
impact on the manifestation of OCB among employees.
No official consensus has been reached yet on what HR practices actually lead to OCB.
However, recent studies commonly assess compensation fairness, rewards and recognition
and employee development (Mukhtar et al., 2012).
PR 3.9.5 Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to how an employee perceives himself to be
47,4 capable of carrying out a more proactive set of work tasks that extend beyond prescribed
technical requirements (Vinces et al., 2012). However, this entails certain psychological risks
for individuals (Dominguez et al., 2013). According to Chen and Chang (2012), individuals
who are more self-assured and confident in their talents, skills, and capabilities are more
likely to consider successful outcomes, and therefore assume the risk of being proactive.
838 Self-efficacy beliefs are directly linked to high levels of taking charge (Morrison and Phelps,
1999) and initiative (Frese et al., 2007). Both these constructs are similar to change-oriented
OCBs, a form of OCB which challenges the status quo of OCB through suggestions for
constructive changes in work methods, processes, and policies (Choi, 2007).
The connection between role breadth and self-efficacy (RBSE) has been studied.
According to Dominguez et al. (2013), RBSE is a strong predictor of proactive behaviors
such as suggestion making, proactive problem solving, employee innovation, and proactive
performance. In light of these findings, Dominguez et al. (2013) suggested that self-efficacy is
an important variable to consider when engaging in change-oriented OCB.
3.9.6 Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership, as a result of rigorous
studies, has been known to have an important impact on extra-role performance and OCB.
According to Podsakoff et al. (2000) and Vega-Vazquez et al. (2012), transformational

leadership refers to the degree of influence that leaders have over their members to inspire
them to perform beyond expectations. This concept is derived from Greenleaf (1977), who
believed that leaders are role models. Since employees are inspired to display OCB based on
their role models, they are encouraged in turn to serve others if they see their role models
doing the same.
3.9.7 Self-serving motives. Employees also engage in OCB in order to impress their
supervisors and more likely be rewarded and recognized. However, even when employees
are motivated by this reason to display OCB, it does not directly affect the organization.
Instead, impression management can deplete the resources of an individual, making them
vulnerable to unethical behavior in the future (Bolino and Klotz, 2015). Some authors
associate impression management with OCB while some go further as to argue that
impression management is interdependent with OCB (e.g. Bolino, 1999; Bolino and Turnley,
1999; Bolino et al., 2002, 2010, 2012, 2013).
3.9.8 Culture. Gelfand et al. (2007) mentioned that since the ancient times, people from
across different cultures have come in contact with one another. However, scholarly
attention regarding the impact of culture in the organizational context only began during
the 1970s (Barrett and Bass, 1976). Prior to this, research findings relating culture with
organizations were mostly based on western samples. Organizational theories that have
been developed based on these findings do not adequately clarify the context of
organizations in other cultures (e.g. Kasa and Hassan, 2016).
3.10 Concepts and/or contexts associated with OCB

3.10.1 Corporate championship. Similar constructs related to OCB have also emerged in the
twenty-first century, and one of these is a corporate championship. The corporate
championship is a prosocial behavior much like the organizational loyalty of Podsakoff et al.
(2000) in which an employee defends his or her corporation from external threats and
criticisms (Gilliland et al., 2005). However, while corporate championship is more concerned
on assisting the organization as a whole, OCB has been shown to influence not just the
organization but also individuals as well.
3.10.2 OCB toward sustainability. Modern scholars have started to recognize the potential
advantages of and opportunities in studying OCB in relation to corporate sustainability.
According to Robert (2000) and McWilliams and Siegel (2001), this is because corporate
sustainability has become a highly important concern in today’s world. With the recent Development
numerous environmental issues that continue to emerge and which affect everyone, the need of OCB and its
to integrate institutional principles with human values has risen (Dunphy et al., 2003). implications
Both Hopper and Nielsen (1991) and Vining and Ebreo (1992) agreed in their studies that
values had a significant connection with how people are most likely to act and/or react
according to the situation. Consequently, Schwartz and Bilsky (1991) and Karp (1996)
opined that these human values may direct individuals to exhibit behaviors that are in 839
accordance with the common good, such as OCB. In 2009, Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2009)
made the connection between the two variables when they hypothesized, based on Barley
and Kunda’s (1992) human relation ideology, that organizations pursuing corporate
sustainability ensure social interaction and interpersonal relations among its internal
employees. Patterson et al. (2004) supported this assumption when they stated that an
institution fostering a values-driven organizational culture significantly affects employee
behavior. As a matter of fact, scholars such as Boiral (2008) and Daily et al. (2009) take this a
step further in calling this construct “OCBE,” or “OCB directed toward the environment.”
However, it is worth noting that a deeper investigation into this concept is needed since yet
significantly few scholars have explored this field.

3.10.3 OCB in relation to demographic characteristics. Several empirical studies in the
twenty-first century have also related OCB to different demographic characteristics such as
age, rank, gender, and tenure.
Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) and Kooij et al. (2010) reported that today’s workforce is
rapidly aging given the legislative plans to raise the retirement age in many countries, the
organizational and government policies encouraging employees to continue working for
their respective companies longer, and the measures implemented that discourage
early-retirement agreements (Desmette and Gaillard, 2008). As a result, businesses are now
holding older workers in their employment, adjusting their institutional policies to these
workers’ needs and abilities.
In line with this, Kuehn and Al-Busaid (2002) postulated that the differences in age affect
the likelihood that an employee would display OCB. This is because younger and older
employees may have different inclinations and preferences when it comes to their
colleagues, the organization, and even to themselves, and this leads to different motives for
showing citizenship behavior (Wagner and Rush, 2000). Due to their age, older employees
would feel less inclined to accomplish something. Instead, they feel the need for a greater
sense of belonging than younger employees. Ng and Feldman (2008) observed that older
employees are more willing to build interpersonal relationships with their colleagues and are
most likely to display OCB than the younger ones, since aging people are more focused on
imparting the knowledge and experience that they have gained, to younger coworkers.
Cate and John (2007) opined that this may be due the older employees’ desire for a
professional legacy within the organization.
Despite this, there exist contradictory findings in the existing literature. Löckenhoff and
Carstensen (2004) and Chiu and Tsai (2006) questioned the aforementioned line of thought.
They proposed that older workers actually become less focused on actively contributing to
the organization’s performance. Due to older employees shifting their attention to achieving
personal-life fulfillment, they eventually withdraw themselves from their work (Zacher and
Frese, 2009). Because they are now more open to transferring their responsibilities to the
newer workforce, they are less likely to display OCB. Greater exploration is therefore needed
to fully understand the age-OCB relationship.
As for rank, Dirican and Oya (2016) stated that high-ranked employees are most likely to
display OCB than those with a lower rank and that the higher the rank of an employee, the
greater is the chance that he or she would manifest citizenship behaviors (Morrison, 1994).
PR Anjum and Naqvi (2012) explained that this is because employees with lower ranks in the
47,4 organization perceive themselves as receiving less support from their supervisors, as compared
to those in the upper echelons of the organizational hierarchy. They also put less trust on their
supervisors, which affect their willingness to demonstrate OCB (Anjum and Naqvi, 2012).
Clearly, Anjum and Naqvi’s (2012) discovery coincides with the findings of Eisenberger
and Rhoades (2006), both of which support a positive connection between supportive
840 supervision and work behavior. Wat and Shaffer (2005) further confirmed that the level of
workers’ trust in their leaders predicts the former’s tendency to display OCB. Mayer and
Gavin (2005) posited that this may be due to the employees’ ability to focus on their work
since an organization engendering an atmosphere and culture of trust makes them feel
safe and secure. In turn, Lam et al. (1999) concluded that high-ranked employees
(e.g. supervisors, managers, team leaders) consider extra-role behaviors as part of their
work tasks.
On the other hand, gender has also been connected to OCB. An empirical research done
by Farrell and Finkelstein (2007) stated that women are most likely to display helping
behaviors than men, hence supporting Heilman and Chen’s (2005) and Bihm et al.’s (1979)
assumptions. However, both Feinman (1978) and Ehrhart and Godfrey (2003) argued that it
is the other way around. They stated that in terms of altruistic behavior, men are a more
likely display such behavior in comparison to women. Although previous studies also show
no difference between the two (e.g. Benson et al., 1976; Boice and Goldman, 1981), Wanxian
and Weiwu (2007) opined that women actually give more importance to establishing
harmonious relationships with their colleagues while men display more helping behavior
than women. Past studies discovered that the gender of the person being helped is also an
important factor that the “helper” might look into since both men and women tend to help
their opposite sex (Basow and Crawley, 1978).
According to Cloninger et al. (2011), gender stereotype prescriptions, socialization, and social
roles as they are today testify to the fact that women are inherently more relationship-oriented
than men and therefore engage more in citizenship behaviors compared to the opposite sex.
Still, because men are generally expected to be more heroic, Lin (2008) stated that they exhibit
more citizenship behaviors that are at higher risk. They also value success more than women
do and thus may be more dedicated to helping the company achieve organizational success
than women (Langford and MacKinnon, 2000). From this, males are presumed to engage more
in OCB for greater team effectiveness, showing that gender stereotyping may have something
to do more in OCB than previously believed (Cameron and Nadler, 2013).
Aside from the possibility that employee gender may affect their tendency to manifest
OCB, the current literature also related gender with OCB due to the assumption that subtle
discrimination exists on the way, men and women are rewarded differently for their
citizenship behavior (Allen, 2006). Cooper et al. (2001) mentioned that gender may affect how
males and females are expected to act and how their behavior may be interpreted. Based on
this, Mathur (2013) found that due to social expectations from each gender, women are more
concerned about being treated with dignity and respect. Hence, when they perceive fair and
just treatment from their employers, they are more likely to reciprocate by going beyond
their formal work responsibilities (Ando and Matsuda, 2010).
Meanwhile, Wright and Bonett (2002) opined that long-tenured employees are more
likely to display OCB. This is because job longevity fosters a sense of belonging to
employees and strong interpersonal relationships with colleagues. Moreover, they are more
committed to the organization, thus sparking a willingness to exhibit OCB (Ng and
Feldman, 2011). Aside from that, Zacher and Frese (2011) explained that a longer stint with
the company prompts individuals to want active participation in the organization’s decision
making since they will be a part of it in the long run.
In addition, due to greater opportunities being afforded to longer-tenured workers, those Development
who have stayed longer with the organization are presumed to more greatly adopt citizenship of OCB and its
behaviors compared to newer employees (Bradley, 2007; Bal and Kooij, 2011). Notably, this implications
conforms with Blau’s (1964) SET and March and Simon’s (1958) inducements-contributions
model, which posit that individuals provided with opportunities tend to reciprocate by
displaying citizenship behaviors. Saks (2006) also postulated that employees with good career
prospects perceive a high quality of professional relationship with their employers. This is 841
consistent with Mohammad et al.’ (2010) work, which discussed that the longer employees
spend time within the same work environment, the better acquainted and more accustomed
they become with its structure, policies, and culture. Since they are now more aware of the
company’s objectives and how to achieve them, they become more dedicated and loyal in
accomplishing these goals and hence, they endeavor to go above and beyond their routine
role tasks.
3.10.4 OCB as manifested in the service industry. The current literature proves that OCB
in the twenty-first century has become the center of attention in the service industry
(i.e. banks, hotels, hospitals, academic institutions) and industrial sectors. In the twenty-first
century, OCB is seen as an important aspect so far in the service industry’s human resource
departments (Dirican and Oya, 2016).

A new dimension of OCB has emerged during this period. Among all the types of OCBs
that have been studied, the service industry in the twenty-first century has been found to
focus more on OCB manifested toward customers, or OCBC. According to Dastyari and
Shahabi (2014), quality of service, which is one of the most important criteria in service
businesses, depends on how employees interact with the customer. It is for this reason
that employees serving the frontline are one of the most important resources in an
organization. Dastyari and Shahabi (2014) stated that the degree of trust and commitment
that employees show when interacting with customers is a major factor in service quality.
Because the service industry has grown exponentially in the twenty-first century, much of
the scholarly attention during this decade has been spent on trying to study OCB in the
service context.
Table I shows a summary of how the concept of OCB gradually developed, from the
1930s until present (2017).
4. Implications for the twenty-first century

The twenty-first century workplace has become a more complex environment. Various
economies are now highly integrated, resulting in more competitive work situations.
With the current trends in the workplace, OCB can play an important role in increasing
organizational effectiveness through employee behavior.
Several factors have increased competition in different industries since the start of the
twenty-first century. These include globalization, rapid technological and communications
advancements, continuous political instability, and changes in workforce demographics,
among others. Because of this, human resource flexibility is seen as beneficial for businesses to
adapt to the constantly changing environment.
Organizations have seen the importance of customer service in their operations. Since
work is often believed to require joint effort instead of individual effort, OCB is highly
considered when tasks require cooperation and collaboration within teams and even among
workers. When employees engage in OCB, customers may view this as trying to exceed
their expectations which will result in positive customer perception toward the organization.
An increased utilization of teams has also resulted in institutions continuously relying on
employee extra-role behaviors that contribute to organizational effectiveness. The current
workplace scenario has become more demanding since it requires more talent, skills, and
PR Year Development Findings/Description Source
47,4
1930s
The Hawthorne studies Emphasized the socio-psychological aspects Muldoon (2012)
1920s-1932 of human behavior in institutions
1938 “Willingness to cooperate” Barnard discussed a theory of organization Barnard (1938)
based on his conception of cooperative
842 systems
1939 Management and the worker Roethlisberger and Dickson narrated the Roethlisberger
events that took place during experiments of and Dickson
the Hawthorne studies (1939)
1950s
1950 Group cohesion theory Festinger described group members’ Festinger (1950)
disposition to display greater readiness to
assist and support their colleagues
1953 Motivations are equated with Viteles concluded that a highly productive Viteles (1953)
workers’ performance and employee views his job positively, resulting
morale in employee satisfaction
1954-1955 Linkage between Seashore and Whyte stated that among all Seashore (1954),
performance and work the attitudes, performance is positively Whyte (1955)
attitudes connected to the degree of pride felt by
employees toward their respective
organizations
1955 Published the most influential Brayfield and Crockett deduced that Brayfield and
narrative article on employee satisfaction and performance had a Crockett (1955)
satisfaction-performance “minimal or no relationship”
relationship
1958 Distinction between Guion and Stagner declared that satisfaction Guion (1958),
motivation and morale refers to an individual’s outlook toward his Stagner (1958)
job while morale implies a degree of group
cohesiveness
1958 Inducements-contributions This framework states that there is a reciprocal March and Simon
model exchange between employees’ individual (1958)
contributions and the incentives offered
1959 Two-factor theory Two different groups of factors affect Herzberg et al.
satisfaction: a certain set of factors can cause (1959)
job satisfaction while another may cause
dissatisfaction
1960s
1961 Explorations on the physical Focusing the attention on the employees’ Likert (1961)
and socio-emotional needs of physical and socio-emotional needs results in
employees employee satisfaction
1962 Investigation of the Investigations regarding employees’ Real (1962)
importance of the various attitudes and their voluntary “helping
aspects of superior- behavior” went on this period
subordinate relationship
1964 Innovative and spontaneous Importance of employees’ discretionary and Katz (1964)
behaviors spontaneous behaviors
1964 Social exchange theory (SET) Blau’s SET became the most popular Blau (1964)
hypothetical framework used in studying
OCB
1966 “Extra-role behavior” Observation of extra-role behavior in the Katz and Kahn
Table I. workplace (1966)
Summary of the
historical development
of OCB (continued )
Year Development Findings/Description Source
Development
of OCB and its
1968 Conscience development Aronfreed conceptualized the development of Aronfreed (1968) implications
conscience
1969 Superior-subordinate Scholars wanted to determine the degree of Zand et al. (1969)
relationships influence of employer-employee relationships
on how employees openly communicated
workplace-related concerns 843
1970s
1970 Coined the term “prosocial Ideas related to prosocial behavior were Batson et al.
behavior” included in the studies of behavior in work (1991)
organizations
1970 Commitment-workplace The concept of commitment was related to Hall et al. (1970)
behavior workplace behavior
1973 Advocating a positive and Kegan and Rubenstein assumed that this Kegan and
dynamic work environment was due to the belief that a positive social Rubenstein
for employees organizational environment fosters creativity (1973)
and communication among employees
1975 Establishment of trust as an Scholars examined trust in relation to Jones et al. (1975)
invaluable aspect of social organizational culture, leadership behaviors,
relationships supervisor characteristics, and leader-
member traits
1977 Organizational Citizenship Organ et al. created the name “organizational Organ (1977)
Behavior citizenship behavior” to describe what causes
employees to casually go above and beyond
their job descriptions
1980s
1983 “Organizational citizenship Officiated the use of the term “organizational Bateman and
behavior” (OCB) citizenship behavior,” and related it to Organ (1983)
various dimensions of organizational
performance
1983 Two types of citizenship Smith and her colleagues believed that Smith et al. (1983)
behavior citizenship behavior had two types: altruism
and generalized compliance
1986 Third type of citizenship Graham recommended a third type of Graham (1986)
behavior employee contribution that is relevant to the
accomplishment of organizational goals and
called it “civic virtue”
1988 Concrete definition of OCB OCB is defined as individual behavior that is Organ (1988)
discretionary, not directly or explicitly
recognized by the formal reward system, and
that in the aggregate promotes the effective
functioning of the organization
1988 Five dimensions of OCB The 5 dimensions of OCB (i.e. altruism, Organ (1988)
conscientiousness, courtesy, civic virtue, and
sportsmanship) will become the bases for
other dimensions to be created in the future
1989 Graham’s four dimensions Graham created four other dimensions of Graham (1989)
OCB based on Organ’s: interpersonal helping,
individual initiative, personal industry, and
loyal boosterism
1989 High level of performance and Karambayya proved that employees with Podsakoff et al.
job satisfaction as high level of performance and job (1997)
determinants of OCB satisfaction are most likely to display OCB
(continued ) Table I.
PR Year Development Findings/Description Source
47,4
1990s
1990 Peacekeeping and Two years after coining “OCB,” Organ added Organ (1990b)
cheerleading “peacekeeping” and “cheerleading” to the
original five dimensions
844 1990-1993 Organizational justice Aside from job satisfaction, another Moorman (1991),
antecedent was created in connection to OCB Niehoff and
Moorman (1993)
1991 Six-dimension scale Lin developed the six-dimension scale which Lin (1991)
includes identification with the organization,
harmony, assistance to colleagues, discipline,
righteousness, and self- improvement
1991 OCBI and OCBO Williams and Anderson categorized OCB in Williams and
terms of the targeted party of the behavior: Anderson (1991)
OCB directed toward individuals (OCBI) and
OCB directed toward the organization (OCBO)
1994 OCB as a impacts sales unit Podsakoff and MacKenzie reported that the Podsakoff and
performance impact of OCB on sales unit performance MacKenzie (1994)

1994 Three more dimensions Van Dyne and his colleagues introduced Van Dyne et al.
another three dimensions: obedience, loyalty, (1994)
and participation
1995-1997 OCB-personality relationship Voluminous studies have been carried out on Organ and Lingl
OCB-personality relationship (1995), Penner
et al. (1997)
1997 OCB as a factor of Podsakoff showed that OCB is related to Podsakoff and
organizational performance organizational performance MacKenzie (1997)
2000 Podsakoff categorized 30 Classified the 30 dimensions, previously Podsakoff et al.
researched dimensions into identified in the past years, into seven (2000)
seven categories general categories
2001 – present
21st Knowledge age Exploration of OCB in relation to other Various
Table I. century disciplines researchers
energy from its employees in order to survive. Jobs are becoming more unpredictable and
complex, thus resulting in greater challenges for employees.
Finally, recent changes in the workplace set-up entail major concerns for organizations
since today’s highly globalized and diversified environment makes it challenging to
encourage OCB among employees. Manyika et al. (2017) reported that with the advent of
automation today, people and technology need to work together in order to harness and
realize the full potential of robotics. It is expected that new antecedents of OCB will emerge,
causing other identified ones to become irrelevant.
5. Conclusion
Based on the review presented, it can be observed that the concept of OCB was slow to develop.
Although it has been introduced in the late 1970s and officially defined in the 1980s, its origins
can be traced back to the 1930s. Despite this, OCB is generally regarded as a relatively new
construct and has become one of the biggest subjects studied in the literature. The concept has
reached far and wide into the business world, supporting the fact that employees’ well-being
and behaviors can greatly affect organizations’ effectiveness and performance.
It is recommended that a deeper investigation of the relationship between its
antecedents, determinants, and other concepts related to OCB is needed. Having been the
topic of a significant number of studies, there have been inconsistent research findings
regarding the concepts. Furthermore, some concepts have been noted to overlap, with Development
several scholars using different terms for essentially similar concepts. These overlaps were of OCB and its
demonstrated in several levels. First, on the basis of the term, OCB is highly associated with implications
contextual performance, prosocial organizational behavior, and extra-role behavior with few
studies demonstrating the precise overlaps of these terms in various possible contexts.
Second, widely known OCB antecedents are also established constructs in their own right
and these constructs influence the display of OCB both in the individual and organizational 845
levels. Aside from these causal relationships, these antecedents have significant overlaps
with scant empirical reports in the current literature. It is not also widely known whether
and how these overlaps of antecedents impact OCB. Finally, other organizational factors
have been reported to relate OCB with varying degrees. These include corporate
championship, corporate sustainability (i.e. initiatives brought about by the emerging
pressures related to sustainable development), demographic factors such as age, rank,
gender, and tenure, and the rise of service industries and servitization patterns in the
twenty-first century which may set forth a collective interest on OCB toward customers.
These factors have not been comprehensively explored and understood well in the
current literature.
This has brought about disorganization in the literature. A more careful research
analysis is recommended in order to avoid confusion, such as a longitudinal OCB analysis
(which may be conducted to generate greater insight rather than a cross-sectional
approach). Finally, Ueda (2016) provided interesting points for future work on OCB such as
the need to understand the relationships of OCB with other relevant factors, to provide a
meta-analysis of national/cultural differences, and to explore OCB antecedents. These areas
require significant attention as the twenty-first century unfolds.
References
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Academic Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 267-299.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of effective continuance and
normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1,
pp. 1-18.
Allen, T. and Rush, M. (1998), “The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance
judgments: a field study and laboratory experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83
No. 2, pp. 247-260.
Allen, T.D. (2006), “Rewarding good citizens: the relationship between citizenship behavior, gender,
and organizational rewards”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 120-143.
Alotaibi, A.G. (2001), “Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior: a study of public personnel
in Kuwait”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 363-376.
Ando, N. and Matsuda, S. (2010), “How employees see their roles: the effect of interactional justice and
gender”, Journal of Service and Science and Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 281-286.
Anjum, A. and Naqvi, G. (2012), “Impact of perceived supervisor support on organizational citizenship
behavior: mediating role of trust”, paper presented at The Asian Conference on Psychology &
the Behavioral Sciences: Official Conference Proceedings, Osaka, available at: http://iafor.org/
archives/offprints/acp2012-offprints/ACP2012_0209.pdf
Aoyagi, M.W., Cox, R.H. and McGuire, R.T. (2005), “Organizational citizenship behavior in sport:
relationships with leadership, team cohesion and athlete satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 25-41.
Argyris, C. (1964), Integrating the Individuals and the Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Armstrong, M. (2006), A Handbook of Human Resource Management, Kogan Page Publishers, London.
PR Aronfreed, J.M. (1968), Conduct and Conscience: The Socialization of Internalized Control over Behavior,
47,4 Academic Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bakker, A., Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M. (2011), “Work engagement: further reflections on the state of
play”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 74-88.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Verbeke, W. (2004), “Using the job demands-resources model to predict
burnout and performance”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 83-104.
846 Bakker, D., Maureen, F. and Arnold, B. (2010), “Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive
work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 579-599.
Bal, P.M. and Kooij, D. (2011), “The relations between work centrality, psychological contracts, and job
attitudes: the influence of age”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 497-523.
Baldwin, S. (2006), Organisational Justice, Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton.
Barley, S.R. and Kunda, G. (1992), “Design and devotion: surges of rational and normative ideologies of
control in managerial discourse”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 363-399.
Barnard, C.I. (1938), The Functions of The Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Barrett, G.V. and Bass, B.M. (1976), “Cross-cultural issues in industrial and organizational psychology”,
in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally,
Chicago, IL, pp. 1639-1686.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The big five personality dimensions and job performance:
a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Basow, S. and Crawley, D. (1978), “Helping behavior: effects of sex and sex-typing”, Social Behavior and
Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 69-72.
Bass, B.M. (1965), Organizational Psychology, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983), “Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship between
affect and employee citizenship”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 587-595.
Batson, C.D., Batson, J.G., Slingsby, J.K., Harrell, K.L., Peekna, H.M. and Todd, R.M. (1991), “Empathic
joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 61
No. 3, pp. 413-426.
Beal, D.J., Cohen, R.R., Burke, M. and McLendon, C.L. (2004), “Cohesion and performance in groups:
a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 6,
pp. 989-1004.
Becker, H.S. (1960), “Notes on the concept of commitment”, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 32-40.
Becker, J.A.H. and Dan O’Hair, H. (2007), “Machiavellians’ motives in organizational citizenship
behavior”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 246-267.
Benson, P.L., Karabenick, S.A. and Lerner, R.M. (1976), “Pretty pleases: the effects of physical
attractiveness, race, and sex on receiving help”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 409-415.
Berkowitz, L. (1987), “Mood, self-awareness, and willingness to help”, Journal of Personality and Social
Berkowitz, L. and Connor, W.H. (1966), “Success, failure, and social responsibility”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 664-669.
Berkowitz, L. and Daniels, L.R. (1963), “Responsibility and dependency”, Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 5, pp. 429-436.
Berkowitz, L. and Daniels, L.R. (1964), “Affecting the salience of the social responsibility norm: effects
of past help on the response to dependency relationships”, Journal of Abnormal and Social
Bewley, T.F. (2012), “Fairness, reciprocity, and wage rigidity”, in Diamond, P. and Vartiainen, H. (Eds), Development
Behavioral Economics and Its Applications, 2nd ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, of OCB and its
pp. 157-181.
implications
Bies, R. (1987), “The predicament of injustice: the management of moral outrage”, in Cummings, L.L.
and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 289-319.
Bihm, E., Gaudet, I. and Sale, O. (1979), “Altruistic responses under conditions of anonymity”, Journal 847
of Social Psychology, Vol. 109 No. 1, pp. 25-30.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bogler, R. and Somech, A. (2005), “Organizational citizenship behavior in school: how does it relate
to participation in decision making?”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 43 No. 5,
pp. 420-438.
Boice, K. and Goldman, M. (1981), “Helping behavior as affect by type of request and identity of caller”,
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 115 No. 1, pp. 95-101.
Boiral, O. (2008), “Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 221-236.
Bolino, M., Valcea, S. and Harvey, J. (2010), “Employee, manage thyself: the potentially negative
implications of expecting employees to behave proactively”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 325-345.
Bolino, M.C. (1999), “Citizenship and impression management: good soldiers or good actors?”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 82-98.
Bolino, M.C. and Klotz, A.C. (2015), “The paradox of the unethical organizational citizen: the link
between organizational citizenship behavior and unethical behavior at work”, Current Opinion
in Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 45-49.
Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (1999), “Measuring impression management in organizations: a scale
development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy”, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 187-206.
Bolino, M.C., Harvey, J. and Bachrach, D. (2012), “A self-regulation approach to understanding
citizenship behavior in organizations”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 126-139.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2002), “Citizenship behavior and the creation of social
capital in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 505-522.
Bolino, M.C., Klotz, A.C., Turnley, W.H. and Harvey, J. (2013), “Exploring the dark side of organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 542-559.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., Gilstrap, J.B. and Suazo, M.M. (2010), “Citizenship under pressure: what’s a
‘good soldier’ to do?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 835-855.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. and Associates (Eds), Personnel
Selection in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 71-98.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1997), “Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning
for personnel selection research”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 99-109.
Bradley, G. (2007), “Job tenure as a moderator of stress-strain relations: a comparison of experienced
and newstart teachers”, Work and Stress, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 48-64.
Brayfield, A.H. and Crockett, W.H. (1955), “Employee attitudes and employee performance”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 396-424.
Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1986), “Prosocial organizational behaviors”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 4 No. 11, pp. 710-725.
Buchanan, B. (1974), “Building organizational commitment: the socialization of managers in work
organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 533-546.
PR Bull, R. and Stevens, J. (1980), “Effect of unsightly teeth on helping behavior”, Perceptual and Motor
47,4 Skills, Vol. 51 No. 2, p. 438.
Cameron, S. and Nadler, J. (2013), “Gender roles and organizational citizenship behaviors: effects on
managerial evaluations”, Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 28 No. 7,
pp. 380-399.
Castro, C., Armario, E.M. and Ruiz, D.M. (2004), “The influence of employee organizational citizenship
848 behavior customer loyalty”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 27-53.
Cate, R.A. and John, O.P. (2007), “Testing models of the structure and development of future time
perspective: maintaining a focus on opportunities in middle age”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 186-201.
Cem-Ersoy, N., Derous, E., Born, M. and Van Der Molen, H. (2015), “Antecedents of organizational
citizenship behavior among Turkish white-collar employees in the Netherlands and Turkey”,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 49, pp. 68-79.
Chan, S.J. and Lai, H.I. (2017), “Understanding the link between communication satisfaction, perceived
justice, and organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 214-223.
Chen, C.H., Tang, Y.Y. and Wang, S.J. (2009), “Interdependence and organizational citizenship behavior:
exploring the mediating effect of group cohesion in multilevel analysis”, Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 143 No. 6, pp. 625-660.
Chen, Y. and Chang, C. (2012), “Enhance green purchase intentions: the roles of green perceived
value, green perceived risk, and green trust”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 502-520.
Chen, Z.X. and Francesco, A.M. (2003), “The relationship between the three components of commitment
and employee performance in China”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 490-510.
Chiu, S.F. and Chen, H.L. (2005), “Relationship between job characteristics and organizational
citizenship behavior: the mediational role of job satisfaction”, Social Behavior and Personality,
Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 523-540.
Chiu, S.F. and Tsai, M.C. (2006), “Relationships among burnout, job involvement, and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 140 No. 6, pp. 517-530.
Cho, Y. and Ryu, J. (2009), “Organizational citizenship behavior in relation to job embeddedness,
organizational identification, job performance and voluntary turnover intention in Korea”,
International Business and Economics Research Journal, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 51-68.
Choi, J. (2007), “Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: effects of work environment
characteristics and intervening psychological processes”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 467-484.
Cinar, O., Karcioglu, F. and AlIogullari, Z.D. (2013), “The relationship between organizational silence
and organizational citizenship behavior: a survey study in the province of Erzurum, Turkey”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 99, pp. 314-321.
Cloninger, P.A., Ramamoorthy, N. and Flood, P.C. (2011), “The influence of equity, equality, and gender
on organizational citizenship behaviors”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 76 No. 4,
pp. 37-47.
Coleman, V.I. and Borman, W.C. (2000), “Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship
performance domain”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-44.
Cooper, C.L., Dewe, P. and O’Driscoll, M. (2001), Organizational Stress: A Review and Critique of Theory,
Research, and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. (2002), “A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 927-946.
Cropanzano, R. and Greenberg, J. (1997), “Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through the
maze”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 317-372.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E. and Byrne, Z.S. (2003), “The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work Development
attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Applied of OCB and its
implications
Daily, B.F., Bishop, J.W. and Govindarajulu, N. (2009), “A conceptual model for organizational citizenship
behavior directed toward the environment”, Business & Society, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 243-256.
Darley, J.M. and Latane, B. (1968), “Bystanders’ intervention in emergencies, diffusion of
responsibility”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 377-383. 849
Dastyari, A. and Shahabi, M. (2014), “Organizational citizenship behavior, customers loyalty and
quality of services a study of Iranian service organization”, International Journal of
Management Academy, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 45-52.
Davar, S.C. and Ranju, B. (2012), “Relationship between job satisfaction and job performance:
a meta-analysis”, The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 290-305.
Davila, M.C. and Finkelstein, M.A. (2011), “Individualism/collectivism and organizational citizenship
behavior”, Psicothema, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 401-406.
Deluga, R.J. (1998), “Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: the role of
subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity”, Group and Organizational Management,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 189-216.

Desmette, D. and Gaillard, M. (2008), “When a ‘worker’ becomes an ‘older worker’: the effects of age-
related social identity on attitudes towards retirement and work”, Career Development
International, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 168-185.
Dewett, T. and Denisi, A.S. (2007), “What motivates organizational citizenship behaviours? Exploring
the role of regulatory focus theory”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 241-260.
Dion, K.K., Berscheid, E. and Walster, E. (1972), “What is beautiful is good”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 285-290.
DiPaola, M. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001), “Organizational citizenship behavior in schools and its
relationship to school climate”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 424-447.
DiPaola, M.F. and Hoy, W.K. (2005), “Organizational citizenship of faculty and achievement of high
school students”, The High School Journal, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 35-44.
Dirican, A.H. and Oya, E. (2016), “An exploration of academic staff’s organizational citizenship
behavior and counterproductive work behavior in relation to demographic characteristics”,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 235, pp. 351-360.
Dominguez, M., Enache, M., Sallan, J. and Simo, P. (2013), “Transformational leadership as an
antecedent of change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 66 No. 10, pp. 2147-2152.
Dunnette, M.D. and Kirchner, W.K. (1965), Psychology Applied to Industry, Appleton-Century-Crofts,
New York, NY.
Dunphy, D.C., Griffiths, A. and Benn, S. (2003), Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability:
A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents of the Future, Routledge, London.
Eby, L.T., Butts, M.M., Hoffman, B.J. and Sauer, J.B. (2015), “Cross-lagged relations between mentoring
received from supervisors and employee OCBs: disentangling causal direction and identifying
boundary conditions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 1-11.
Ehrhart, M.G. and Godfrey, E.G. (2003), “The role of schemas in gender and organizational citizenship
research”, paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference for the Society of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Ehrhart, M.G., Bliese, P.D. and Thomas, J.L. (2009), “Unit-level OCB and unit effectiveness: examining
the incremental effect of helping behavior”, Human Performance, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 15-173.
Eisenberger, R. and Rhoades, L. (2006), “When supervisors feel supported: relationships with
subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 689-695.
PR Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support and
47,4 employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1,
pp. 51-59.
Emery, R.E. and Trist, E.L. (1960), “Socio-technical systems”, in Churchman, C.W. and Verhulst, M.
(Eds), Management Science Models and Techniques, Vol. 2, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY,
pp. 83-97.
Ewen, R.B. (1964), “Some determinants of job satisfaction: a study of the generality of Herzberg’s
850 theory”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 161-163.
Ewen, R.B., Hulin, C.L., Smith, P.C. and Locke, E.A. (1966), “An empirical test of the Herzberg two-factor
theory”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 544-550.
Farooqui, M.R. (2012), “Measuring organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as a consequence
of organizational climate (OC)”, Asian Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 294-302.
Farrell, S. and Finkelstein, L. (2007), “Organizational citizenship behavior and gender: expectations and
attributions for performance”, North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 81-96.
Feather, N.T. and Rauter, K.A. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behaviors in relation to job status,
job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 81-94.

Feinman, S. (1978), “Sex differences in physical attractiveness preferences”, Journal of Social
Festinger, L. (1950), “Informal social communication”, Psychological Review, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 271-282.
Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management, Sage
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (2001), “Fairness theory: justice as accountability”, in Greenberg, J. and
Cropanzano, R. (Eds), Advances in Organizational Justice, Stanford University Press,
Stanford, CA, pp. 1-55.
Foote, D. and Tang, T. (2008), “Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: does team
commitment make a difference in self-directed teams?”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 6,
pp. 933-947.
Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004), “The race for talent: retaining and engaging
workers in the 21st century”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 12-25.
Frese, M., Garst, H. and Fay, D. (2007), “Making things happen: reciprocal relationships between work
characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 92, pp. 1084-1102.
Fu, N. (2013), “Exploring the impact of high performance work systems in professional service firms: a
practices-resources-uses-performance approach”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 240-257.
Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Upadhay, N. and Davis, A.J. (2005), “Organizational citizenship
behavior and organizational commitment in Nepal”, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 305-314.
Gelfand, M.J., Erez, M. and Aycan, Z. (2007), “Cross-cultural organizational behavior”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 479-514.
George, J.M. (1991), “State or trait: effects of positive mood on prosocial behavior at work”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 299-307.
George, J.M. and Brief, A.P. (1992), “Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at
work-organizational spontaneity relationship”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 310-329.
George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (1997), “Organizational spontaneity in context”, Human Performance,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 153-170.
Gilliland, S.W., Steiner, D.D., Skarlicki, D.P. and Van Den Bos, K. (2005), What Motivates Fairness in
Organizations?, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
Gonzales, J. and Garazo, T. (2006), “Structural relationship between organizational service orientation, Development
contact employee job satisfaction and citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Service of OCB and its
Industry Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 23-50.
implications
Goranson, R.E. and Berkowitz, L. (1966), “Reciprocity and responsibility reactions to prior help”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 227-232.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178. 851
Graham, J.W. (1986), “Organizational citizenship behavior informed by political theory”, paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.
Graham, J.W. (1989), “Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization,
and validation”, unpublished working paper, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Graham, J.W. (1991), “An essay on organizational citizenship behavior”, Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 249-270.
Graham, J.W. (2000), “Promoting civic virtue organizational citizenship behavior: contemporary
questions rooted in classical quandaries from political philosophy”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 61-77.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Looking for fair vs being fair: managing impressions of organizational justice”,
in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 111-157.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and
Greatness, Paulist Press, New York, NY.
Gross, E. (1954), “Primary functions of the small group”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 60 No. 1,
pp. 24-29.
Guion, R.M. (1958), “Industrial morale (a symposium): the problems of terminology”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 59-64.
Hall, D.T., Schneider, B. and Nygren, H.T. (1970), “Personal factors in organizational identification”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 176-189.
Harrell, W.A. (1978), “Physical attractiveness, self-disclosure, and helping behavior”, Journal of Social
Harris, M.B. and Bays, G. (1973), “Altruism and sex roles”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 32 No. 3, p. 1002.
Harrison, R. and Kessels, J. (2004), Human Resource Development in a Knowledge Economy, Palgrave
Macmillan, Hampshire.
Hassani, K. and Boroujerdi, S.S. (2013), “The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on
organizational commitment”, Global Business Perspective, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 452-470.
Heilman, M. and Chen, J. (2005), “Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to men’s and women’s
altruistic citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 431-441.
Herzberg, F., Mauzner, B. and Synderman, B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, 2nd ed., Wiley,
New York, NY.
Herzberg, F., Mauzner, B., Peterson, R. and Capwell, D.F. (1957), Job Attitudes: Review of Research and
Opinion, Psychological Services of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Hogan, J., Rybicki, S.L., Motowidlo, S.J. and Borman, W.C. (1998), “Relationship between contextual
performance, personality and occupational advancement”, Human Performance, Vol. 11 Nos 2-3,
pp. 189-207.
Homans, G. (1958), “Social behavior as exchange”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63 No. 3,
pp. 597-606.
Hopper, J.R. and Nielsen, J.M. (1991), “Recycling as altruistic behavior: normative and behavioral
strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program”, Environment and
Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 195-220.
Hoppock, R. (1935), Job Satisfaction, Harper and Brothers, New York, NY.
PR Horwitz, F. and Jain, H. (2008), “Managing human resources in South Africa: a multinational firm
47,4 focus”, in Lawler, J.J. and Hundley, G. (Eds), The Global Diffusion of Human Resource Practices:
Institutional and Cultural Limits (Advances in International Management, Volume 21), Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, pp. 89-123.
Hrebiniak, L.G. and Alutto, J. (1972), “Personal and role-related factors in the development of
organizational commitment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 555-572.
Hurtz, G.M. and Donovan, J.J. (2000), “Personality and job performance: the big five revisited”, Journal
852 of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 6, pp. 869-879.
Jafari, P. and Bidarian, S. (2012), “The relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 47, pp. 1815-1820.
Jha, S. and Jha, S. (2010), “Determinants of organizational citizenship behavior: a review of literature”,
Journal of Management and Public Policy, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 27-36.
John, O.P. and Srivastava, S. (1999), “The big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives”, in Pervin, L.A. and John, O.P. (Eds), Handbook of Personality, Guilford
Press, New York, NY, pp. 102-138.
Jones, A.P., James, L.R. and Bruni, J.R. (1975), “Perceived leadership behavior and employee confidence
in the leader as moderated by job involvement”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1,
pp. 146-149.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Thoresen, C.J. and Patton, G.K. (2001), “The job satisfaction-job performance
relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127 No. 3,
pp. 376-407.
Juhnke, R., Barmann, B., Cunningham, M., Smith, E., Vickery, K., Hohl, J. and Quinones, J. (2001),
“Effects of attractiveness and nature of request on helping behavior”, Journal of Social
Kanfer, R. and Ackerman, P.L. (2004), “Aging, adult development, and work motivation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 440-458.
Kanter, R.M. (1968), “Commitment and social organization: a study of commitment mechanisms in
utopian communities”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 499-517.
Karambayya, R. (1991), “Contexts for organizational citizenship behavior: do high performing and
satisfying units have better’ citizens”, York University working paper, York University, Ontario.
Karp, D.G. (1996), “Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior”, Environment and Behavior,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 111-133.
Kasa, M. and Hassan, Z. (2015), “The role of flow between burnout and organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) among hotel employees in Malaysia”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 211, pp. 199-206.
Kasa, M. and Hassan, Z. (2016), “Flow experience and organizational citizenship behaviour among
hotel employees: moderating effect of socio-cultural factor”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 224, pp. 101-108.
Kataria, A., Garg, P. and Rastogi, R. (2013), “Employee engagement and organizational effectiveness:
the role of organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Business Insights and
Transformation, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 102-113.
Katz, D. (1964), “The motivational basis of organizational behavior”, Behavioral Science, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 131-146.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1965), The Social Psychology of Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York, NY.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Kegan, D.L. (1971), “Organizational development: description, issues, and some research results”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 453-464.
Kegan, D.L. and Rubenstein, A.H. (1973), “Trust, effectiveness, and organizational development: a field
study in R&D”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 498-513.
Kidder, D.L. and Parks, M.J. (2001), “The good soldier: who is (s)he?”, Journal of Organizational Development
Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 939-959. of OCB and its
Kim, S. (2006), “Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea”, implications
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 722-740.
Koch, J. and Steers, R. (1978), “Job attachment, satisfaction, and turnover among public sector
employees”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 119-128.
Konovsky, M.A. and Organ, D.W. (1996), “Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational 853
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Kooij, D., DeLange, A.H., Jansen, P., Kanfer, R. and Dikkers, J. (2010), “Age and work-related motives:
results of a meta-analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 197-225.
Koys, D.J. (2001), “The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and
turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitudinal study”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 101-114.
Kuehn, K.W. and Al-Busaid, Y. (2002), “Citizenship behavior in a non- western context: an examination
of the role of satisfaction, commitment and job characteristics on self- reported OCB”,
International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 107-125.
Kumar, Y.L. (2014), “Importance of organizational citizenship behaviors in enhancing customer service
indicators: a review”, IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Lam, S.S.K., Hui, C. and Law, K.S. (1999), “Organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing perspectives
of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples”, Journal of Applied
Langford, T. and MacKinnon, N.J. (2000), “The affective bases for the gendering of traits: comparing
the United States and Canada”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 34-48.
Latane, B. and Darley, J. (1970), The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t he Help?, Appleton-Century-
Crafts, New York, NY.
Latham, G. (2007), Work Motivation: History, Theory, Research, and Practice, Kogan Page Publishers,
London.
Lawler, E.E. and Porter, L.W. (1965), “The effect of performance on job satisfaction”, Industrial
Relations A Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 20-28.
Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Sablynski, C.J., Burton, J.P. and Holtom, B.C. (2004), “The effects of job
embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and
voluntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 711-722.
Leeds, R. (1963), “Altruism and the norm of giving”, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly Journal of Developmental
Leephaijaroen, S. (2016), “Effects of the big five personality traits and organizational commitments on
organizational citizenship behavior of support staff at Ubon Ratchathani Rajabhat University,
Thailand”, Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 104-111.
LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D.E. (2002), “The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87
No. 1, pp. 52-65.
Lewis, J. and Weigert, A. (1985), “Trust as a social reality”, Social Forces, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 967-985.
Likert, R.L. (1961), The Human Organization, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Lin, C.P. (2008), “Clarifying the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior, gender,
knowledge sharing in workplace organizations in Taiwan”, Journal of Business Psychology,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 241-250.
Lin, S.J. (1991), “Relationship between compensation equity, procedural justice, organizational commitment
and organizational citizenship behavior”, doctoral dissertation, National Chengchi University.
Lind, E. and Tyler, T. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
PR Linnenluecke, M. and Griffiths, A. (2009), “Corporate sustainability and organizational culture”, Journal
47,4 of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 357-366.
Locke, E.A. (1969), “What is job satisfaction?”, Organisational Performance and Human Performance,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 309-336.
Löckenhoff, C.E. and Carstensen, L.L. (2004), “Socioemotional selectivity theory, aging, and health:
the increasingly delicate balance between regulating emotions and making tough choices”,
854 Journal of Personality, Vol. 72 No. 6, pp. 1395-1424.
Lomoya, M., Pingol, M. and Teng-Calleja, M. (2015), “Antecedents of job satisfaction and organizational
citizenship behaviors among agency-hired blue-collar contractual workers in the Philippines”,
Philippine Journal of Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1987), “Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 81-90.
McDougall, W. (1932), “Of the words character and personality”, Character Personality, Vol. 1, pp. 3-16.
McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D. (2001), “Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 117-127.
Macaulay, J. and Berkowitz, L. (1970), “Overview”, in Macaulay, J. and Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Altruism and
Helping Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-3.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Fetter, R. (1993), “The impact of organizational citizenship
behavior on evaluations of sales performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 70-80.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Rich, G.A. (2001), “Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 115-134.
Maier, N.R.E., Hoffman, L. and Read, W.H. (1963), “Superior-subordinate communication: the
effectiveness of managers who held their subordinates’ positions”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Miremadi, M., Bughin, J., George, K., Wilmott, P. and Dewhurst, M. (2017),
Harnessing Automation for a Future That Works, McKinsey Global Institute, New York, NY.
March, J. and Simon, H. (1958), Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Marsh, R.M. and Mannari, H. (1977), “Organizational commitment and turnover: a prediction study”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 57-75.
Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.
Mathur, S. (2013), “Organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior among store
executives”, Human Resource Management Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 124-149.
Mayer, R. and Gavin, M. (2005), “Trust in management and performance: who minds the shop while the
employees watch the boss?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 874-888.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Miller, G.E., Cohen, S., Rabin, B.S., Skoner, D.P. and Doyle, W.J. (1999), “Personality and tonic
cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, and immune parameters”, Brain, Behavior, and Immunity,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 109-123.
Mohammad, J., Habib, F.Q. and Mohammad, M.A. (2011), “Job satisfaction and organizational
citizenship behavior: an empirical study at higher learning institutions”, Asian Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Mohammad, J., Habib, F.Q. and Zakaria, S. (2010), “Organizational citizenship behavior and
commitment: do age and tenure make any difference?”, Business and Management Quarterly
Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 28-49.
Moideenkutty, U. (2005), “Organizational citizenship behavior and social exchange: a study of the Development
effects of sources of positive benefits”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and of OCB and its
Conflict, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 125-135.
implications
Moorman, R.H. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?”, Journal of Applied
Moorman, R.H. and Blakely, G.L. (1995), “Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference 855
predictor of organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 127-142.
Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L. and Niehoff, B.P. (1998), “Does perceived organizational support mediate
the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 351-357.
Morgeson, F.P., Reider, M.H. and Campion, M.A. (2005), “Selecting individuals in team settings: the
importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge”, Personnel
Morrison, E.W. (1994), “Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: the importance of the
employee’s perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1543-1567.
Morrison, E.W. and Phelps, C.C. (1999), “Taking charge at work: extrarole efforts to initiate workplace
change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 403-419.
Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C. and Schmit, M.J. (1997), “A theory of individual differences in task and
contextual performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 71-83.
Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R. and Stewart, G.L. (1998), “Five-factor model of personality and performance
in jobs involving interpersonal interactions”, Human Performance, Vol. 11 Nos 2-3, pp. 145-166.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), “The measure of organizational commitment”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 224-247.
Mukhtar, A., Sial, M.A., Imran, A. and Jilani, S. (2012), “Impact of HR practices on organizational
citizenship behavior and mediating effect of organizational commitment in NGOs in Pakistan”,
World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 901-908.
Muldoon, J. (2012), “The Hawthorne legacy: a reassessment of the impact of the Hawthorne studies on
management scholarship, 1930-1958”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 105-119.
Naidu, S.P. (1996), Public Administration: Concepts and Theories, New Age International Ltd.
Publishers, Hyderabad.
Neuman, G.A. and Kickul, J.R. (1998), “Organizational citizenship behaviors: achievement orientation
and personality”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 263-279.
Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2008), “The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance”,
Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2011), “Affective organizational commitment and citizenship behavior:
linear and non-linear moderating effects of organizational tenure”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 528-537.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a moderator of the relationship between methods of
monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 527-556.
Nishida, T. (1997), “Kigyo ni okeru soshiki shimin kodo ni kansuru kenkyu [organizational citizenship
behavior in the Japanese economy: on the cause of voluntary actions and motives in the
organization]”, Japanese Journal of Administrative Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 101-122.
Norman, W.T. (1963), “Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor
structure in peer nomination personality ratings”, Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology,
Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 574-583.
Organ, D.W. (1977), “A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance
hypothesis”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 46-53.
PR Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
47,4 Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D.W. (1990a), “The motivational bases of organizational citizenship behavior”, in Cummings, L.L.
and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 43-72.
Organ, D.W. (1990b), “The subtle significance of job satisfaction”, Clinical Laboratory Management
856 Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 94-98.
Organ, D.W. (1994), “Personality and organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 465-478.
Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time”, Human
Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97.
Organ, D.W. and Konovsky, M. (1989), “Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 157-164.
Organ, D.W. and Lingl, A. (1995), “Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior”,
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 135 No. 3, pp. 339-350.
Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995), “A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of
organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 775-802.

Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ouchi, W.G. (1980), “Markets, bureaucrats, and clans”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 129-141.
Pare, G. and Tremblay, M. (2000), “The measurement and antecedents of turnover intentions among IT
professionals”, CIRANO Working Papers 2000s-33, CIRANO, pp. 1-34.
Parry, E. and Tyson, S. (2013), Managing People in a Contemporary Context, Routledge, New York, NY.
Patterson, M., Warr, P. and West, M. (2004), “Organizational climate and company productivity: the
role of employee affect and employee level”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Paulin, M., Ferguson, R. and Bergeron, J. (2006), “Service climate and organizational commitment: the
importance of customer linkages”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 906-915.
Penner, L.A., Midili, A.R. and Kegelmeyer, J. (1997), “Beyond job attitudes: a personality and social
psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior”, Human
Petty, R.E., Harkins, S.G., Williams, K.D. and Latane, B. (1977), “The effects of group size on cognitive
effort and evaluation”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 579-582.
Piliavin, I.M., Piliavin, J.A. and Rodin, J. (1975), “Cost, diffusion, and the stigmatized victim”, Journal of
Pillai, R., Scandura, T.A. and Williams, E.A. (1999), “Leadership and organizational justice: similarities and
differences across cultures”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 763-779.
Plata, M. (1966), “Retaining ethnic minority faculty in institutions of higher education”, Journal of
Instructional Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 221-227.
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit
effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 351-363.
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), “The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on
organizational performance: a review and suggestions for future research”, Human
Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior and the
quantity and quality of workgroup performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2,
pp. 262-270.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996a), “A meta-analysis of the relationships Development
between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role of OCB and its
perceptions, and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 380-399.
implications
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996b), “Transformational leader behaviors and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and
organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 259-298.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B. and Fetter, R. (1993), “The impact of organizational citizenship 857
behavior on evaluations of salespersons’ performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1,
pp. 70-80.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational citizenship
behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-563.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Blume, B.D. (2009), “Individual- and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis”,

Poole, W. (2007), “Organizational justice as a framework for understanding union-management
relations in education”, Canadian Journal of Education, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 725-748.
Pourgaz, A.W., Naruei, A.G. and Jenaabadi, H. (2015), “Examining the relationship of organizational
citizenship behavior with organizational commitment and equity perception of secondary school
administrators”, Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 800-807.
Quinn, R.P. and Kahn, R.B. (1967), “Organizational psychology”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 18,
pp. 437-466.
Raymond, B.J. and Unger, R.K. (1972), “The apparel oft proclaims the man: cooperation with deviant
and conventional youths”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 75-82.
Real, W.H. (1962), “Upward communication in industrial hierarchies”, Human Relations, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 3-15.
Rifai, H.A. (2005), “A test of the relationships among perceptions of justice, job satisfaction, affective
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior”, Gadjah Mada International Journal of
Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-154.
Robert, K. (2000), “Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a general
framework for sustainable development, and to each other?”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 243-254.
Roethlisberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J. (1939), Management and the Worker: An Account of a Research
Program Conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, Wiley, Chicago, IL and
New York, NY.
Rurkkum, S. and Bartlett, K. (2012), “The relationship between employee engagement and
organizational citizenship behavior in Thailand”, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 154-174.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
Schacter, S., Ellertson, N., McBride, D. and Gregory, D. (1951), “An experimental study of cohesiveness
and productivity”, Human Relations, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 229-238.
Schein, E.H. (1970), Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Schleicher, D., Watt, J. and Greguras, G. (2004), “Reexamining the job satisfaction – performance
relationship: the complexity of attitudes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 1,
pp. 165-177.
PR Schwab, D.P. (1980), “Construct validity in organizational behavior”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M.
47,4 (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 3-43.
Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1991), “Toward a universal psychological structure of human values”,
Schwartz, S.H. and Gottlieb, A. (1976), “Bystander reactions to a violent theft: crime in Jerusalem”,
858 Seashore, S.E. (1954), Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group, Institute for Social Research,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Shaw, J.D., Dineen, B.R., Fang, R. and Vellella, R.F. (2009), “Employee-organization exchange
relationships, HRM practices, and quit rates of good and poor performers”, Academy of
Sheldon, M.E. (1971), “Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the
organization”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 143-150.
Shokrkon, H. and Naami, A. (2009), “The relationship of job satisfaction with organizational citizenship
behavior and job performance in Ahvaz factory workers”, Journal of Education and Psychology,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 39-52.
Singh, A.K. and Singh, A.P. (2009), “Does personality predict organizational citizenship behavior
among managerial personnel?”, Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, Vol. 35
No. 2, pp. 291-298.
Singh, U. and Srivastava, K.B. (2009), “Interpersonal trust and organizational citizenship behavior”,
Psychological Studies, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 65-76.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), “Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and
antecedents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 653-663.
Sridhar, A. and Thiruvenkadam, T. (2014), “Impact of employee engagement on organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Management Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 147-155.
Stagner, R. (1958), “The gullibility of personnel managers”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 347-352.
Staub, E. (2013), Development and Maintenance of Prosocial Behavior: International Perspectives on
Positive Morality, Springer, New York, NY.
Steers, R.M. (1977), “Antecedents and outcomes or organizational commitment”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 46-56.
Stevens, J.M., Janice, M. and Trice, J. (1978), “Assessing personal, role and organizational predictors of
managerial commitment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 380-396.
Strauss, G. (1968), “Human relations – 1968 style”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 262-276.
Sun, L.Y., Aryee, S. and Law, K.S. (2007), “High performance human resource management practices,
citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: a relational perspective”, Academy of
Tambe, S. and Shanker, D.M. (2014), “A study of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and its
dimensions: a literature review”, International Research Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 1, pp. 67-73.
Tanaka, K. (2013), “Organizational citizenship behavior in contemporary workplaces in Japan”, Japan
Labor Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 5-18.
Taylor, F.W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper & Brothers, New York, NY.
Tharikh, S.M., Ying, C.Y., Saad, M.Z. and Sukumaran, K. (2016), “Managing job attitudes: the role of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment on organizational citizenship behaviors”,
Procedia – Economics and Finance, Vol. 35, pp. 604-611.
Triandis, H.C. (1959), “A critique and experimental design for the study of the relationship between
productivity and job satisfaction”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 309-312.
Tsaousis, Y. (1996), “The psychometric assessment of personality in Greek spoken population”, Development
unpublished PhD thesis, University of London, London. of OCB and its
Tsui, A.S. and Wang, D.X. (2002), “Employment relationships from the employer’s perspective: current implications
research and future directions”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 77-114.
Tupes, E.C. and Christal, R.C. (1961), “Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings”, technical
report, USAF, Lackland Air Force Base, TX. 859
Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1992), “A relational model of authority in groups”, Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 115-191.
Tyler, T.R. and Smith, H.J. (1999), “Justice, social identity, and group processes”, in Tyler, T.R., Kramer, R.M.
and John, O.P. (Eds), The Psychology of the Social Self, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,
Mahwah, NJ and London, pp. 223-264.
Ueda, Y. (2016), “Recent trends in organisational citizenship behaviour research: 2010-2015”,
available at: http://repository.seikei.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10928/804/1/keizai-47-1_9-41.pdf
(accessed 11 March 2017).
Van Bogaert, P., Clarke, S., Willems, R. and Mondelaers, M. (2013), “Nurse practice environment,
workload, burnout, job outcomes, and quality of care in psychiatric hospitals: a

structural equation model approach”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 69 No. 7,
pp. 1515-1524.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L. and Parks, J.M. (1995), “Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of construct and
definitional clarity (a bridge over muddled waters)”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds),
Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 17, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 215-285.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behavior: construct
redefinition, operationalization, and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 765-802.
Van Scotter, J.R. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1996), “Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate
facets of contextual performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 525-531.
Vega-Vazquez, M., Cossio, F. and Martin-Ruiz, D. (2012), “Does the firm’s market orientation behaviour
influence innovation’s success?”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 8, pp. 1445-1464.
Vieten, C., Amorok, T. and Schlitz, M.M. (2006), “I to we: the role of consciousness transformation in
compassion and altruism”, Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 915-932.
Vinces, J., Carrion, G. and Chin, W. (2012), “Effect of ITC on the international competitiveness of firms”,
Journal of Management History, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 1045-1061.
Vining, J. and Ebreo, A. (1992), “Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental
attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22
No. 20, pp. 1580-1607.
Viteles, M.S. (1953), Motivation and Morale in Industry, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY.
Vroom, V.H. (1960), Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, 6th ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Wagner, S.L. and Rush, M.C. (2000), “Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: context,
disposition, and age”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 140 No. 3, pp. 379-391.
Walz, S.M. and Niehoff, B.P. (1996), “Organizational citizenship behavior and their effect on
organizational effectiveness in limited menu restaurants”, Academy of Management Best Paper
Proceedings, 56th Annual Meeting, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 307-311.
Wanxian, L. and Weiwu, W. (2007), “A demographic study on citizenship behavior as in-role
orientation”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 225-234.
Wat, D. and Shaffer, M.A. (2005), “Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational
citizenship behaviors: the mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 406-512.
PR Weakliem, D.L. and Frankel, S.J. (2006), “Morale and workplace performance”, Work and Occupations,
47,4 Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 335-361.
Whyte, W. (1961), The Organisation Man, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Whyte, W.F. (1955), Money and Motivation: An Analysis of Incentives in Industry, Harper and Row, New
York, NY.
Wijayanto, B.R. and Kismono, G. (2004), “The effect of job embeddedness on organizational citizenship
860 behavior”, Gajah Mada International Journal of Business, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 335-354.
Wilchez-Alzate, G. (2009), “The relationship between rewards and recognition, service-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior, and customer satisfaction”, doctoral dissertation,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors
of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 601-617.
Wispe, L.G. (1972), “Positive forms of social behavior: an overview”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 1-19.
Witt, L.A., Burke, L.A., Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (2002), “The interactive effects of
conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87

No. 1, pp. 164-169.
Wong, Y.T., Ngo, H.Y. and Wong, C.S. (2006), “Perceived organizational justice, trust, and OCB: a study
of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 344-355.
Wright, T. and Bonett, A. (2002), “The moderating effects of employee tenure on the relation between
organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Yee, R., Yeung, A. and Cheng, T. (2008), “The impact of employee satisfaction on quality and
profitability in high-contact service industries”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 651-668.
Yen, H.R. and Niehoff, B.P. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behavior and organizational
effectiveness: finding relationship in Taiwanese banks”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 1617-1637.
Yildirim, O. (2014), “The impact of organizational communication on organizational citizenship
behavior: research findings”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 150, pp. 1095-1100.
Yoon, M.H. and Suh, J. (2003), “Organizational citizenship behaviors and service quality as
external effectiveness of contact employees”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 8,
pp. 597-611.
Zacher, H. and Frese, M. (2009), “Remaining time and opportunities at work: relationships between age,
work characteristics, and occupational future time perspective”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 487-493.
Zacher, H. and Frese, M. (2011), “Maintaining a focus on opportunities at work: the interplay between
age, job complexity, and the use of selection, optimization, and compensation strategies”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 291-318.
Zand, D.E. (1972), “Trust and managerial problem solving”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 229-239.
Zand, D.E., Steele, F.I. and Zalkind, S.S. (1969), “The impact of an organizational development program
on perceptions of interpersonal, group, and organization functioning”, Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 393-410.
Zeinabadi, H. (2010), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as antecedents of organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB) of teachers”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 5,
pp. 998-1003.
Zeinabadi, H. and Salehi, K. (2011), “Role of procedural justice, trust, job satisfaction, and Development
organizational commitment in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of teachers: proposing of OCB and its
a modified social exchange model”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 29,
pp. 1472-1481. implications
Zhang, Y. and Liao, J. (2009), “Study on organizational citizenship behavior examination and
influences”, Human Resource Development of China, Vol. 7, pp. 6-9.
Zheng, W., Zhang, M. and Li, H. (2012), “Performance appraisal process and organizational citizenship 861
behavior”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 732-752.
Further reading
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Bewley, T.F. (1999), Why Wages Don’t Fall During a Recession, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Bhatnagar, J. and Biswas, S. (2010), “Predictors and outcomes of employee engagement: implications of
the resource-based view perspective”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 46 No. 2,
pp. 273-286.
Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2005), “The personal costs of citizenship behavior: the relationship
between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 740-748.
Bolino, M.C., Hsiung, H.H., Harvey, J. and LePine, J.A. (2015), “ ‘Well, I’m tired of tryin’!’ organizational
citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 1,
pp. 56-74.
Doering, M., Rhodes, S.R. and Schuster, M.R. (1983), The Aging Worker: Research and
Recommendations, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Farh, J.-L., Zhong, C.-B. and Organ, D.W. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behavior in the people’s
republic of China”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 241-253.
Ilie, M. (2014), “Organizational citizenship behavior, work satisfaction and employees’ personality”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 127, pp. 489-493.
Isen, A.M. and Levin, P.F. (1972), “Effect of feeling good on helping: cookies and kindness”, Journal of
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-1349.
Loi, R., Yang, J. and Diefendorff, J.M. (2009), “Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction: a multilevel
investigation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 770-781.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1985), “Updating Norman’s ‘adequate taxonomy’: intelligence and
personality dimensions in natural language and questionnaires”, Journal of Personality & Social
Organ, D.W. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior: what are the
connections?”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Parker, S. (1998), “Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other
organizational interventions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 835-852.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. (1974), “Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59
No. 5, pp. 603-609.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Spence, M. (1973), “Job market signaling”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3,
pp. 355-374.
Titmuss, R. (1971), The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy, Vintage, New York, NY.
PR Vasquez, M., Silva, F. and Ruiz, D. (2012), “Does the firm’s market orientation behavior influence
47,4 innovation’s success”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 8, pp. 1445-1464.
Williams, S. and Wong, T.S. (1999), “Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: the effects of
positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions”, Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, Vol. 133 No. 6, pp. 656-668.
Zhang, Z., Wan, D. and Jia, M. (2008), “Do high-performance human resource practices help corporate
entrepreneurship? The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior”, The Journal of
862 High Technology Management Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 128-138.
Corresponding author
Lanndon Ocampo can be contacted at: lanndonocampo@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

A Historical Review of The Development of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Its Implications For The Twenty-First Century

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Historical Review of The Development of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Its Implications For The Twenty-First Century

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Historical Review of The Development of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Its Implications For The Twenty-First Century

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personnel Review

A historical review of the development of organizational citizenship behavior

Downloaded on: 25 May 2018, At: 06:35 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

citizenship behavior (OCB) and its

twenty-first century Received 29 April 2017

Department of Industrial Engineering, Cebu Technological University,

School of Management, University of the Philippines Cebu,

3.2 1940-1949: the Second World War

3.4 1960-1969: birth of OCB as a field

helping out one’s colleagues.

3.5 1970-1979: advocating positive and dynamic workplace

3.6 1980-1989: period of relating OCB with other dimensions

the company (Podsakoff et al., 1990, 2000).

3.8 2001 to present: increased understanding of OCB

variables, personality traits, task characteristics, and workplace-related elements as

3.9 Antecedents/determinants of OCB

their support to the organization.

According to Podsakoff et al. (2000) and Vega-Vazquez et al. (2012), transformational

3.10 Concepts and/or contexts associated with OCB

significantly few scholars have explored this field.

departments (Dirican and Oya, 2016).

4. Implications for the twenty-first century

performance impact of OCB on sales unit performance MacKenzie (1994)

Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 189-216.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 81-94.

organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 775-802.

organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis”,

workload, burnout, job outcomes, and quality of care in psychiatric hospitals: a

conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87

You might also like