The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm

IJOA
24,5
Redefining the organizational
citizenship behaviour
Promila Agarwal
Human Resource Management Area, Indian Institute of Management,
956 Ahmedabad, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to highlight the influence of organizational norms and job roles
defined by organizations in the performance of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). To do so,
the research proposes a model of OCB with the following dimensions: normative OCB and rule-bounded
OCB on the basis of social exchange theory and role theory, respectively. Norms, roles and
responsibilities of the organization vary from organization to organization. This paper reports the
operational and empirical indicators of proposed dimensions of OCB, termed as discretionary OCB,
normative OCB and rule-bounded OCB.
Design/methodology/approach – To test the proposed dimensions, the study uses concept
analysis, delphi technique, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis on multi-source
data. It indicates criteria for Cronbach’s alpha reliability, test-retest reliability, convergent validity,
discriminant validity and nomological validity for proposed dimensions.
Findings – The findings reveal two new dimensions of OCB. Besides an individual predisposition/
voluntariness, employees exhibit OCB due to normative pressure in the organization and the
overlapping of the contents of OCB with role and responsibilities. Self-driven, norms-driven and
job-role-driven OCB will have different implications. The findings support the validity of the proposed
OCB model and scale.
Research limitations/implications – The research fills a theoretical gap and will have
implications for the measurement of OCB. The model facilitates the identification of the factors of OCB.
An organization can use the research model in culture building and promoting functional OCB in the
organization as per the organization’s need. The limitations of the study are discussed.
Originality/value – There is no research to date exploring the normative and rule-bounded aspects of
OCB. This is the only research to empirically examine the overlap between the contents of OCB and role
description of employees. This paper is also original in its contribution in measuring the display of OCB
among employees due to pressure from the norms prevalent in the organizations.
Keywords Norms, Organizational citizenship behaviour, Discretionary OCB, Job role,
Normative OCB, Rule-bounded OCB
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
An employee helps his colleagues to comply with the rules of the organization, strives to
perform better and defends the company whenever needed. Is the employee voluntarily
choosing to display this behaviour? What if the employee is displaying the behaviour
because the job role requires him to do so or he is paid to do so? What if the culture and
International Journal of
Organizational Analysis values of the organization are influencing the employee to act in a given way? What if
Vol. 24 No. 5, 2016
pp. 956-984
the employee is explicitly reinforced by the organization to act in this way? The current
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1934-8835
research attempts to answer these questions and resolve the complexity associated with
DOI 10.1108/IJOA-12-2014-0826 organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and its measurement. OCB is an interesting
subject of study in modern times due to fundamental changes in the nature of work and Organizational
the workplace with an increased focus on strategic HR (García-Carbonell et al., 2014) and Citizenship
a shift in the collective culture in which organizations operate. Given that OCB promotes
productivity, efficiency and overall organizational effectiveness (Lo et al., 2006),
behaviour
organizations are working aggressively to encourage OCB among employees (Bolino
and Turnley, 2003) by investing in HRM systems and transforming culture which
promotes OCB (Ling-yee, 2009). Further, the possibility that some organizations have 957
elements of OCB in their documented job descriptions and performance appraisal
manuals cannot be denied. Given the changing organizational environment, are we
really capturing the essence of OCB when it is formally rewarded, when it is part of the
job description, when it might not be discretionary and when it is forced upon employees
by the organization? Will OCB in such a scenario have the same consequences for the
organizations? The contextual boundary conditions to OCB are thus far not
acknowledged in the instruments created to measure OCB (Dekas et al., 2013), although
researchers have been investigating the validity and reliability of OCB measures in
different cultural settings (Lievens and Anseel, 2004; Paillé, 2009). There is a need to
conceptualize and deal with the challenges associated with themes, nomological
network and measurement of OCB in the light of these changes. Further, the
conceptualization of OCB in its early stage was based on political philosophy. As Van
Dyne et al. (1994) stated:
[…] Over time, researchers can develop separate and more detailed nomological networks for
the citizenship categories, each of which most likely has somewhat different antecedents and
consequences. Because at this time the conceptualisation of citizenship based on political
philosophy is in its early stages […] (p. 768).
There is a consensus among researchers that OCB is voluntary, it benefits people and
organizations and it is not a part of the formal system of the organization (Podsakoff
et al., 2009). However, current research departs from this consensus, noting that the
measurement of the elements of OCB (like helping behaviour, compliance,
sportsmanship, loyalty, initiative, civic virtue and self-development) in itself is not
sufficient to examine OCB. A recent study revealed that some of the historical items used
to operationalize OCB have become irrelevant (Dekas et al., 2013); therefore, the results
might be misleading. Employees have various reasons to display OCB, ranging from
impression management (Kim et al., 2013; Snell and Wong, 2007), employee perception
of the link between OCB and performance appraisal (Zheng et al., 2012), predisposition
of an employee and the reciprocal causation relationship among three separate but
related factors: individual characteristics (e.g. cognitive and affective traits), behaviour
(e.g. those behaviours that produce outcomes) and environment (e.g. the social
structure), and extrinsic and intrinsic subsystems (Deci, 1971). In the workplace
presently, the lines between roles, responsibilities, norms, organizational culture,
impression management techniques and voluntary behaviour are blurred as never
before. Previous studies have also revealed that the motives attributed to OCB such as
impression management, prosocial motives, organizational concern (Rioux and Penner,
2001) and self-enhancement motives (Yun et al., 2007) influence the organizational
outcomes differently. However, studies ignore the OCB driven by organizational factors.
There is a need to examine OCB along with these factors. The objective of this research
is not to question the validity of research already done in the area of OCB or the
IJOA discretionary elements of OCB but to consider the organizational-level drivers of these
24,5 elements. The author argues that caution is required to define the boundaries and
measurement of OCB with currently available tools. Researchers and practitioners must
consider the context in which they are using existing scales to measure OCB. The
objective of this study is twofold: first, to propose two dimensions of OCB on the basis of
social-exchange theory and role theory, and second, to validate and create a scale to
958 assess the proposed dimensions. To prove this, the current research tests the role of
norms and rules and responsibilities in influencing OCB at the workplace. The current
research argues that it is important to consider these factors before drawing conclusions
about OCB, as the display of OCB due to any of the factors might fall into some category
of organizational behaviour other than OCB. The study examines a set of operational
indicators for the dimensions of OCB that meet minimal criteria of measurement and
operational indicators of dimensions that highlight the gap between the conceptual
definition of OCB and empirical indicators of OCB. The dimensions are termed as
discretionary OCB (DOCB), normative OCB (NOCB) and rule-bounded OCB (ROCB).
The author hopes that the results of the current research will be of use to human resource
and organizational behaviour researchers either directly in their research contexts or in
theory building.
The paper is divided into three sections. The first section provides an exhaustive
review of the OCB literature focusing on the measurement of OCB. The theoretical
foundation of the proposed dimensions is presented, followed by validation of the
proposed dimensions using the process of review anlaysis, concept analysis, item
selection and emprical validation using exploratory factor anlaysis and confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) by means of self-reports.
Given that OCB is susceptible to the self-serving bias, section two tests the proposed
dimensions using supervsior-rated OCB. Therefore, section two deals with validating
the model using supervisor-rated OCB data. CFA is used to establish convergent
validity. It presents the theoretical circumscription and fundamental viability of the
proposed OCB construct. In section three, the rule-bounded dimension of OCB is
exmained using job-description analysis.

Literature review
The term OCB, first coined by Bateman and Organ (1983), has its roots in Katz’s (1964)
work, who studied innovative and spontaneous behaviour beyond role prescriptions
and distinguished between high and low performers. Barnard (1938) characterized
effective organizations as systems in which individuals cooperate to achieve
organizational ends. The effectiveness of the organization is dependent upon the
employees’ contributions to the organization. The proposition of OCB is based upon
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Extending earlier work on OCB, Katz and Kahn
(1966) introduced the concept of extra-role cooperative behaviour, stating that effective
organizations must evoke innovative behaviour.
OCB is largely studied in the following contexts:
• elements or contents of OCB such as altruism, sportsmanship;
• OCB directed at individual/peers/colleagues, OCB directed at supervisors and
OCB directed at organizations; and
• OCB for the environment (Boiral and Paille=, 2012).
Organ (1988) developed a multiple dimensions framework of OCB, and other researchers Organizational
(Table I) extended his work. However, some researchers have argued that OCB is Citizenship
one-dimensional (LePine et al., 2002; Hoffman et al., 2007). The original definition by
Organ highlighted OCB as behaviour that is discretionary and not formally rewarded by
behaviour
the organization (Organ, 1988). This was followed by the introduction of contextual
performance (Borman and Motowildo, 1997; Borman et al., 1995; Motowildo and Van
Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter and Motowildo, 1996), where OCB does not necessarily have 959

Serial
no. Dimensions Elements Author names

1 Helping behaviour Altruism, cheerleading, courtesy (Organ, 1988, 1990)

and peace-making
Interpersonal helping (Graham, 1989;
Moorman and Blakely,
1995)
Altruism (Smith et al., 1983)
2 Sportsmanship Sportsmanship (Organ, 1988, 1990)
3 Organizational loyalty Loyalty boosterism (Graham, 1989;
Moorman and Blakely,
1995)
Organizational loyalty (Graham, 1991)
4 Organizational compliance Generalized compliance (Smith et al., 1983)
Organizational obedience (Graham, 1991)
5 Individual initiative Conscientiousness (Organ, 1988, 1990)
Personal industry, individual (Graham, 1989;
initiative Moorman and Blakely,
1995)
6 Civic virtue Civic virtue (Smith et al., 1983)
Organizational participation (Graham, 1991)
7 OCB-O and OCB-I Volunteering to carry out task (Williams and
activities, persisting with Anderson, 1991;
enthusiasm and extra effort, Borman and
endorsing, supporting and Motowidlo, 1993, 1997
defending organizational,
following organizational rules
and procedures, helping and
cooperation with others
Job dedication centres on self- (Van Scotter and
disciplined behaviours, Motowidlo, 1996)
interpersonal facilitation
Making constructive (George and Brief, 1992;
suggestions, protecting the George and Jones, 1997)
organization
8 Employee sustainability Participating in activities to (Dekas et al., 2013)
maintain one’s own well-being
or to support others’ to maintain
their health Table I.
9 Knowledge-sharing Sharing knowledge with (Dekas et al., 2013) Review of OCB
colleagues dimensions
IJOA to be discretionary. Despite the multiple definitions by various researchers, the
24,5 commonly held understanding among researchers is that OCB is discretionary and not
rewarded by the organization (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Organ, 1988).
As previously mentioned, the research on OCB has been more focused on
establishing relationships between related constructs rather than construct
development. OCB has emerged as a core topic of research in areas other than human
960 resource and organizational behaviour such as marketing, public administration,
engineering, healthcare services, sports science, sociology, computer science,
communication and nursing (Institute for Scientific Information, 2013) because of its
significant association with favorable organizational outcomes such as customer
citizenship behaviour (Guo and Zhou, 2013), felt obligation and commitment
(Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2006), employee turnover (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Organ and
Konovsky, 1989; Smith et al., 1983), turnover intention (Chen et al., 1998), organizatioal
performance and organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff et al., 2000), withdrawal
behaviour (Koslowsky and Dishon-Berkovits, 2001), organizational-level outcomes
(Bolino et al., 2013; Spector, 2013), individual-level outcomes (Bergeron et al., 2011),
customer service (Morrison, 1996), financial performance (Chun et al., 2013) and
workgroup task performance (MacKenzie et al., 2011).

Dimensions and existing measures of organizational citizenship behaviour

Podsakoff et al. (2000) identified 30 potentially different forms of citizenship behaviour
and broadly classified them under seven themes discussed below. Recently, Dekas et al.
(2013) introduced “employee sustainability” and “knowledge sharing” as two new
dimensions of OCB along with previously validated dimensions. Another
conceptualization distinguishes between affiliation-oriented and challenge-oriented
citizenship behaviours (Van Dyne et al., 1995). The review of all the dimensions and
elements under those dimensions is presented in Table I. The literature suggests that
OCB is primarily measured using the following elements: altruism, conscientiousness,
civic virtue, sportsmanship, courtesy, compliance, interpersonal helping, affiliative
OCB, individual initiative, personal industry and loyalty boosterism (Bateman and
Organ, 1983; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff and Mackenzie, 1989; Podsakoff et al.,
1997; MacKenzie et al., 1991; MacKenzie et al., 1993; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994;
Moorman and Blakely, 1995; Organ and Konovsky, 1989; Graham, 1989; Van Dyne et al.,
1994; Graham, 1989, 1991; Moorman and Blakely, 1995; MacKenzie et al., 1991; Wayne
and Cordeiro, 2003; Williams and Anderson, 1991), OCB-I (OCB directed towards
individuals), OCB-O (OCB directed towards organizations) (Williams and Anderson,
1991), service-oriented OCB (Bettencourt et al., 2001), altruistic concern for the
organization and supervisor (Rioux and Penner, 2001; Davis, 1994), task-focused and
person-focused OCB (Settoon and Mossholder, 2002), OCB-I and OCB-O (Lee and Allen,
2002), helping and voice (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998, Van Dyne et al., 2008; Whiting
et al., 2008), taking charge, change-oriented OCB (Morrison and Phelps, 1999), pro-social
voice and silence (Omar, 2009), adapted version of the same dimensions directed
towards supervisors and peers (Moorman, 1991; Wayne et al., 1997), changed-oriented
OCB (Jiao et al., 2013) and challenge-oriented OCB (MacKenzie et al., 2011). The thorough
analysis indicated that the measurement of OCB so far is limited to the seven themes
identified by Podsakoff et al. (2000). These themes are:
 Helping behaviour. This theme captures Organ’s (1988, 1990) notion of courtesy, Organizational
which involves helping others by taking steps to prevent the occurrence of problems for Citizenship
co-workers and exhibiting polite and soft behaviour toward colleagues. Empirical
research (MacKenzie et al., 1993; MacKenzie et al., 1999; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994;
behaviour
Podsakoff et al., 1997) has generally confirmed that various forms of helping behaviour
load on a single factor.
Sportsmanship. Organ (1990, p. 96) defined sportsmanship as “a willingness to 961
tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work without complaining”.
Employees maintain a positive attitude even when things do not go the way they want,
are not offended when others do not follow their suggestions, are willing to sacrifice
their personal interest for the good of the work group and do not take the rejection of
their ideas personally (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Organ, 1990).
Organizational loyalty. Organizational loyalty consists of loyal boosterism,
organizational loyalty (Graham, 1989, 1991), spreading goodwill, protecting the
organization (George and Brief, 1992; George and Jones, 1997), endorsing, supporting
and defending organizational objectives (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993, 1997).
Generalized compliance. This dimension captures a person’s internalization and
acceptance of the organization’s rules, regulations and procedures, which results in a
conscientious adherence to them. It includes generalized compliance (Smith et al., 1983),
organizational obedience (Graham, 1991), OCB-O (Williams and Anderson, 1991),
following organizational rules and procedures (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993), and the
job dedication construct (Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996).
Individual initiative. This form of OCB includes voluntary acts of creativity and
innovation designed to improve one’s task performance, volunteering to take on extra
responsibilities and encouraging others in the organization to do the same. This dimension
is analogous to the following constructs: personal industry (Graham, 1989; Moorman and
Blakely, 1995), making constructive suggestions (George and Brief, 1992; George and Jones,
1997), persisting with enthusiasm (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993, 1997), taking charge at
work (Morrison and Phelps, 1999) and job dedication (Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996).
Organ (1988) argued that this form of behaviour is among the most difficult to distinguish
from in-role behaviour because it differs more in degree than in kind.
Civic virtue. Civic virtue refers to the willingness to participate actively in governance
(Graham, 1991), to monitor the organization’s environment for threats and opportunities and
to look out for the organization’s best interests even at a great personal cost. This dimension
is comparable to the concept of civic virtue (Organ, 1988, 1990), organizational participation
(Graham, 1989) and protecting the organization (George and Brief, 1992).
Self-development. Self-development includes voluntary acts of employees to engage
in improving their knowledge, skills, competencies and abilities. According to George
and Brief (1992), this includes seeking out advantage from advanced training courses,
keeping abreast of the latest developments in one’s area, learning new skills and
sharpening one’s competencies to add valuable contributions to an organization.

Performance of organizational citizenship behaviour elements is not always

discretionary
OCB and its measurement scales at present capture the extent to which an employee
performs a particular behaviour (i.e. elements of OCB). It simply gives us information
about display of OCB. It does not capture the non-discretionary drivers of OCB. This
IJOA compromises the theoretical notion of OCB, which is based on the fact that behaviour
24,5 has to be discretionary to be labelled as OCB. Therefore, the author argues that there is
a need to consider the role of the non-discretionary drivers of OCB while measuring
OCB.

Norms influence organizational citizenship behaviour

962 Norms are by-products of the culture that provides information about acceptable forms
of behaviour (Axelrod, 1984). Organizational cultures (Turnipseed and Murkison, 2000)
and organizational environments (Temminck et al., 2013) are significant determinants of
OCB. Organizations are aggressively investing in changing culture that encourages
employees to display creativity, self-discipline and loyalty (elements of OCB). Further, a
recent study revealed that discretionary HR practices are positively associated with
OCB directed towards an organization (Gavino et al., 2012). Employees in such
organizations perform the elements of OCB because of norms, an informal
understanding governing their behaviour and perception of acceptable and
unacceptable behaviour. The driving force here is social acceptance. This again
contradicts the fundamental notion of the “self-chosen” or “voluntary” element of OCB.
The current study argues that elements of OCB displayed due to norms must be
differentiated from discretionary behaviour.

Elements of organizational citizenship behaviour overlap with formal roles and

responsibilities
Most of the elements of OCB such as creativity, following organizational rules and
procedures, protecting the organization, punctuality, etc., appear to be part of rules, roles
and responsibilities. Further, elements of OCB are formally rewarded by organizations.
This aspect further compromises the other core notion of OCB that it has to be beyond
roles and responsibilities. The variation in display of OCB has been reported to be due to
the differentiation reward policy associated with OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Bolino
et al., 2004). A recent meta-analysis examined the degree to which employees consider
OCB as an inherent part of their job. It was reported that Confucian Asians consider OCB
to be a part of their job to a greater extent than do their Anglo counterparts, and
affiliative OCB (e.g. helping, conscientiousness and courtesy) are more likely to be
considered a part of one’s job than change-oriented OCB (Jiao et al., 2013). The author
supports the argument that the perception of in-role behaviour depends upon an
employee’s perception of role breadth (Morrison, 1994). However, the current study goes
a step further and argues that there are organizations where the overlap between formal
rules and responsibility is formally documented in the employee’s role and is not merely
about perception. There is a scope to validate the perceived in-role or extra-role
behaviour through the examination of the job description and other formal documents.
Further, the overlap between OCB and in-role is also a matter of degree, as the
proficiency level of a particular skill varies from position to position and role to role.
Therefore, the current study proposes that the extent to which the formal job
requirement overlaps with OCB measurement criteria needs to be emprically examined.

Proposed dimensions
Based on the premises stated above, the current study proposes three dimensions of
OCB labelled as DOCB, NOCB and ROCB.
Discretionary organizational citizenship behaviour Organizational
Discretionary OCB refers to an employee’s discretionary behaviour that is beyond the Citizenship
call of duty, not explicitly recognized by the organization, and benefits the people and
the organization. The term is labelled as discretionary OCB to differentiate it from OCB,
behaviour
which is not voluntary. It is similar to traditional OCB or synonymous with OCB.
Despite growing evidence that OCB is unifactorial, little effort has been made to validate
unifactorial measures of citizenship behaviour (Poropat and Jones, 2009). The current 963
study proposes that DOCB is one-dimensional because an employee with a tendency to
display discretional behaviour is likely to display it across the elements of OCB.

Normative organizational citizenship behaviour

Normative OCB refers to an employee’s behaviour beyond the call of duty, displayed due
to peer pressure, strong norms of the organization, and a shared belief in the
organization. It is not explicitly recognized by the organization and collectively benefits
the people and organization. The norms and culture of the organization act as a driver to
perform or not to perform OCB. This dimension is drawn from role theory as a
background, which suggests that roles are shaped by the expectations of the system in
which they are embedded and specified by certain normative behaviours and attitudes
(Katz and Kahn, 1978; Stryker and Serpe, 1982). There are various contextual factors
that influence OCB (Eisenberg and Fabes, 1988). For instance, less highly formalized
organizations create an atmosphere of group cohesiveness that encourages employees
to engage in OCB (George and Bettenhausen, 1990), and bureaucratically structured
organizations create an environment of employee alienation that inhibits OCB
(Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1995).

Rule-bounded organizational citizenship behaviour

ROCB refers to the extent to which the elements of the OCB are displayed because it is
part of roles, responsibilities, performance evaluation or any such formal requirement of
the job.

Operationalizing the construct

Method
Figure 1 is a schematic presentation of the research process linking the conceptual
development part with measurement development and validation as per the procedures
recommended by Pett et al. (2003). Empirical indicators of OCB were identified based on
the exhaustive literature review and concept analysis. The draft items were verified
using the Delphi technique before and after pilot testing, before using it for the final
analysis.
Item selection
Literature review The initial list of items related to the dimensions was generated from
an exhaustive review of the literature. The principal researcher evaluated the list, and
seven others engaged in OCB research. The list served to generate 172 items.
Concept analysis. Concept analysis (Burns and Grove, 2001) was conducted to
identify the empirical indicators of OCB, which were determined through following
steps:
• determination of the purpose of concept analysis;
• identification of the definitions and characteristics of OCB;
IJOA
Review of Literature
24,5 • Review of theories &
Final Scale
Typologies
• EFA (N = 1074)
• Review of all the • CFA, (N = 1074; N = 200)
qualitative & quantitative • Supervisor- (CFA;
articles N = 571)
964 • Review of Scales
Delphi Technique
(N = 26)
• Test -retest reliability
(N = 771)
• Review of measurement • Cronbach’s alpha
issues & challenges Reliability
• Content Validation
• Convergent Validity
Figure 1. • Nomological Validity
An overview of scale Articulation of 72 Items
conceptualization

• examination of the theoretical background of OCB;

• identification of sub-components of OCB;
• identification of the antecedents and consequences of OCB; and
• defining the empirical indicators of OCB.

Based on the concept analysis, 62 items were shortlisted and 110 items were removed.
Most of the items were removed primarily because of high content commonality with
syntax similarity.
Delphi technique. The delphi method is a structured communication technique used
to forecast (or to make decisions) through a systematic, interactive forecasting method
which relies on a panel of experts (Norman and Olaf, 1963; Linstone and Turoff, 1975). In
all, 97 experts from the fields of management, psychology, human resource
management, organizational behaviour and psychological testing with more than 10
years’ experience were invited to participate in the Delphi technique. A total of 26
participants participated. Demographic details are presented in Table II. Experts were
requested to match the OCB dimensions with the items and critique the scale on the
following parameters:
Q1. Are the instructions appropriate and clear?
Q2. Is there a need to add additional or to modify instructions?
Q3. Are the framed items clear and simple to understand?
Q4. Is there any item that is confusing and misleading?
Q5. Would you suggest re-framing any item to make it more meaningful?
Q6. Does the instrument capture the total content area of OCB?
Q7. Does the instrument miss any aspect of OCB?
Q8. Are the items sufficient to capture the components of OCB?
Q9. Is there any aspect/content that needs to be added?
Q10. Is there any content that does not measure OCB and hence needs to be
removed?
Survey Self-reports Supervisor-rated OCB Test-retest reliability
Organizational
Citizenship
Age (years) M ⫽ 40.33 M ⫽ 48.10 M ⫽ 38.90 behaviour
SD ⫽ 11.54 SD ⫽ 14.31 SD ⫽ 13.13
21-25 234 96 183
26-30 253 83 254
31-35 236 82 79
36-40 192 2 73
965
41-45 223 74 40
46-50 205 42 43
51-55 246 123 42
56-60 245 69 57
Gender M ⫽ 1.46 M ⫽ 1.40 M ⫽ 1.60
SD ⫽ 0.49 SD ⫽ 0.49 SD ⫽ 0.69
Male 987 338 317
Female 847 233 454
Total 1,834 571 771
Delphi technique
Field Academia Corporates
10a 16b
Gender Male ⫽ 7: Female ⫽ 3 Male ⫽ 9; Female ⫽ 7
Age M ⫽ 47.20 M ⫽ 42.63
SD ⫽ 10.72 SD ⫽ 16.18
Table II.
Note: a Includes two experts with scale development expertise; b
Eight line managers and eight HR Sample
managers characteristics

Q11. Is the formatting of the instrument appropriate?

Q12. Is the instrument well designed?
Q13. Would you like to make any suggestions for improving the layout of the
instrument?
Q14. Is the instrument professional in appearance?
Q15. Are the items clustered too closely or loosely?
Q16. Is it simple and easy to read the questions and mark the answers on the
response sheet?
All the concerns raised by the experts were dealt with, and all the modifications were
made before administration. On the basis of the Delphi technique, 60 items were
generated and 6 items were removed.
Sample. During the pilot testing phase, the final data set indicated significant
under-representation of women. This factor was considered during the final stage, and
questionnaires were sent to an equal number of males and females. A similar approach
was followed to ensure that all age groups were equally represented. In total, the
questionnaire was mailed to 8,092 participants and 2,898 participants responded. In all,
692 partially filled responses were removed, and 372 responses were removed to ensure
equitable responses from different profile groups. The eligible responses totalled 1,834,
IJOA and the demographic details of the participants are presented in Table II. Responses
24,5 were given on a five-point scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.
Data collection procedure. Freelance data collection analysts and HR consultants
were contacted through personal contacts. They were requested to facilitate the data
collection by introducing organizations and participants. The data then were collected
by the author and assistants. IT experts were hired to run the online survey to ensure
966 high responsiveness using an “email-campaign” and frequent reminders.

Results
Exploratory factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed using
SPSS version 22. During EFA, 24 items were eliminated because they did not have a
significant coefficient. The determinant value is 8.381E-24 and is not equal to zero.
Hence, the correlation matrix is not singular and positive definite. The KMO value of
0.937 is meticulous as per the Kaiser criterion (Kaiser, 1974). The value suggests that
there is a sufficient sample size relative to the number of items in our scale. Bartlett’s test
is significant, N ⫽ 1834 (␹2 ⫽ 96,716.4378442666, p ⫽ 0.000).
Factor loadings from rotated factor matrix for organizational citizenship
behaviour. Table III indicates that all 36 items in the aggregate load on three factors. In
all, 24 items with a coefficient less than 0.50 were removed. Factor 1 explains the
maximum variance of 43.81 per cent, Factor 2 explains the variance of 21.93 per cent and
Factor 3 explains the variance of 11.52 per cent. The items measuring DOCB load
on Factor 1, items measuring NOCB load on Factor 2 and items measuring ROCB load on
Factor 3.
Confirmatory factor analysis. CFA was performed using AMOS version 20. CFA
resulted in a model with 29 items and elimination of 7 items. When the model was fitted
using 36 items, the model did not fit the data [␹2 ⫽ 14477.793, df ⫽ 542, minimum
discrepancy, divided by its degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF) ⫽ 26.712, root mean square
residual (RMR) ⫽ 0.272, GFI ⫽ 0.764, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) ⫽ 0.118; normed fit index (NFI) ⫽ 0.851; comparative fit index (CFI) ⫽ 0.856],
with significant regression estimates.
The model obtained after removing the seven items improved the fitness of the model
significantly. The chi-square (␹2 ⫽ 2,916.00, df ⫽ 324) of all the models obtained was
highly significant (p ⬍ 0.001), and CMIN/DF of 9.00 is not in the range of 3 to 1. Other
model fit measures are considered because chi-square is sensitive to sample size
(Carmines and McIver, 1981). The RMR is moderately close to (RMR ⫽ 0.047, p ⬍ 0.05)
zero, indicating a good fit. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) signifies the overall amount
of the covariation among the observed variables that can be accounted for the hypothesized
model. The value greater than 0.90 indicates a good fit, GFI value of 0.91, and meets the
criterion of model fitness (Baumgartner and Hombur, 1996). Further, RMSEA (0.044, p ⬍
0.05) below the 0.05 cut-off indicates the approximation of the observed model to the true
model. NFI ⫽ 0.960 and CFI ⫽ 0.965 further indicates that the model fits the data. The fit
indices demonstrated acceptable fit (Hu and Bentler, 1998, 1999).
The regression estimate of the modified model is presented in Figure 2. In Figure 2, all
items have strong standardized loadings on DOCB, ranging from 0.71 to 0.81, except
Item 5 and Item 10, which do not have strong standardized loadings on DOCB. All items
have strong standardized loadings on NOCB, ranging from 0.89 to 0.93, except Items 13,
15 and 24. Ten of 11 items have strong standardized loadings on ROCB, ranging from
 Factor
Organizational
Serial no. Items 1 2 3 Citizenship
behaviour
1 Tolerate the inevitable inconvenience and impositions 0.021 ⫺0.096 0.814
without whining and grievance (DOCB)
2 Willingly helps others who have work-related problems 0.005 ⫺0.085 0.773
(DOCB)
3 Obeys company rules and regulations even when no one ⫺0.017 ⫺0.142 0.723
967
is watching (DOCB)
4 Does not take extra breaks (DOCB) 0.060 ⫺0.060 0.795
5 Voluntarily come forward in times of crisis/emergency 0.077 ⫺0.112 0.769
to resolve the problem (DOCB)
6 If anyone criticizes my organization, I strongly defend 0.014 ⫺0.142 0.755
my company (DOCB)
7 Do not compromise on quality standards even if it 0.001 ⫺0.071 0.786
means quick benefits (DOCB)a
8 Do not engage in any fraudulent practices because my ⫺0.040 ⫺0.170 0.716
value system does not allow it (DOCB)a
9 Do not engage in favouritism and nepotism because my 0.009 ⫺0.094 0.767
value system does not allow it (DOCB)a
10 Goes out of his/her way to protect organizational 0.123 ⫺0.086 0.784
property (DOCB)
11 Shares ideas for new projects or improvements widely ⫺0.071 ⫺0.067 0.717
(DOCB)
12 Volunteers for overtime work when needed (DOCB) 0.027 ⫺0.078 0.729
13 I am supposed to make creative contributions to succeed 0.299 0.894 ⫺0.010
in my current role (NOCB)a
14 Feels constant pressure to over-achieve my targets 0.269 0.889 ⫺0.111
(NOCB)a
15 Do not engage in any unproductive activities because it 0.163 0.877 ⫺0.221
is discouraged by others in the organization (NOCB)a
16 Employees in the current organizations are supposed to 0.256 0.868 ⫺0.127
come together at the times of crisis (NOCB)a
17 Do not engage in any fraudulent practices because 0.215 0.896 ⫺0.079
company norms do not allow (NOCB)a
18 Complaining about insufficient things at workplace is 0.242 0.864 ⫺0.194
discouraged by the organization (NOCB)a
19 Work beyond the official responsibility because the 0.226 0.867 ⫺0.170
organization believes that employees must not confine
themselves to official responsibilities (NOCB)a
20 Visit office and office-related meetings without delay 0.257 0.874 ⫺0.110
because it is highly unacceptable (NOCB)a
21 Not sharing information and ideas can lead to social 0.253 0.872 ⫺0.175
rejection (NOCB)a
22 Pursue additional training because I am expected to 0.211 0.867 ⫺0.158
participate in all the training programs organized by the Table III.
organization (NOCB)a Exploratory factor
23 Does not abuse the rights of others because values and 0.265 0.877 ⫺0.121 analysis from rotated
norms of the organization does not allow (NOCB)a factor matrix of the
(continued) OCB
IJOA Factor
24,5 Serial no. Items 1 2 3

24 I am expected to represents organization favourably to 0.304 0.873 ⫺0.151

outsiders (NOCB)a
25 Make creative contribution at my workplace because of 0.905 0.246 0.051
968 my role requirement (ROCB)a
26 Perform extra duties and responsibilities because it is 0.783 0.366 ⫺0.014
associated with extra perks (ROCB)a
27 Do not engage in any fraudulent practices because it is a 0.912 0.184 0.018
punishable act in the organization (ROCB)a
28 Do not compromise on quality standards because 0.902 0.254 0.029
quality performance is the basic requirement of my role
(ROCB)a
29 Do not speak against the organization because it is 0.913 0.233 0.026
against the organization’s disciplinary policy (ROCB)a
30 Support and develop team members because employees 0.901 0.247 0.035
are evaluated on the basis of their ability to support and
develop colleagues (ROCB)a
31 Maintain good relations with my colleagues because 0.913 0.223 0.034
interpersonal facilitation is one of the performance
indicators in my current organization (ROCB)a
32 Do not engage in unproductive tasks because employees 0.914 0.224 ⫺0.009
are formally tracked with regard to their work activities
(ROCB)a
33 Over-achieve targets because it is linked to 0.918 0.201 0.085
compensation (ROCB)a
34 Conscientiously follow the organizational rules because 0.913 0.252 0.011
disciplinary action can be taken against me (ROCB)a
35 Actively pursue my development programs because it is 0.921 0.211 0.031
part of my roles and responsibilities (ROCB)a
36 I take steps to prevent problems with workers because it 0.899 0.273 ⫺0.031
is highly appreciated in the organization (ROCB)a
Eigenvalues 15.773 7.896 4.146
% of variance explained 43.813 21.932 11.518

Table III. Notes: a Newly generated items; numbers in italics indicate factor loadings

0.93 to 0.95. The no-correlation between DOCB and ROCB indicates that the two factors
are independent. There is a significant negative correlation between DOCB and NOCB,
and there is a significant positive correlation between NOCB and ROCB.

Scale properties
Reliability
Method. Sample: Demographic details of the participants are presented in Table II.

Results
Cronbach’s alpha reliability: DOCB ⫽ 0.924, NOCB ⫽ 0.978 and ROCB ⫽ 0.986.
Test-retest reliability: The participants were requested to fill in the questionnaire 20
days after receipt of their original responses at time 1. At Time 2, 1,844 participants were
 I. 1 Organizational
I. 2 0.80 Citizenship
I. 3
0.76
behaviour
0.70
I. 4
0.77 DOCB
I. 6
0.78
I. 7
0.81 969
I. 8 I. 14
0.67
I. 9 I. 16 0.93
0.74
–0.23
I. 17 0.91
I. 11 0.71
0.93
I. 12 0.71 I. 18
0.91
I. 19 NOCB 0.00
I. 25 0.91
I. 20
0.93
I. 27 0.94
I. 21
0.93
I. 28 0.93
I. 22 0.89 0.66
I. 29 0.93
I. 23 0.92
0.94
I. 30
0.93
I. 31
0.95
I. 32 ROCB
0.95
I. 33
0.94 Figure 2.
I. 34 0.95 Regression estimates
I. 35
from self-reports
0.94

requested to fill in the questionnaire again to establish test-retest reliability.

The duration of response at Time 2 varied from 1 to 30 days from the date of
communication requesting participation at Time 2. The eligible responses for
establishing test-retest reliability totalled 771 and the demographic details are given in
Table II. The Pearson correlation between items ranges from 0.80 to 0.92 and the
correlation of the composite score of DOCB is (0.89, p ⬍ 0.01) and NOCB is (0.92, p ⬍
0.01).

Convergent validity
Convergent validity is an assessment of the consistency in measurements across
multiple operationalizations, that is, the degree to which two measures of constructs that
theoretically should be related are related (Campell and Fiske, 1959). The DOCB should
correlate with an existing measure of the same construct (DeVellis, 1991).

Method
Measures. The DOCB in the current study emerged as a unidimensional construct.
Therefore, DOCB was correlated with relatable dimensions from the existing tools.
Altruism, generalized compliance and conscientiousness dimensions borrowed from the
scale by Podsakoff et al. (1990) and loyalty, advocacy participation and functional
participation borrowed from Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994).
IJOA Sample. The sample from self-reports is used to test the convergent validity
24,5 (Table II).

Results
As expected, the DOCB is significantly correlated with all the dimensions: altruism
(0.80, p ⬍ 0.01), generalized compliance (0.81, p ⬍ 0.01), conscientiousness (0.86, p ⬍
970 0.01), loyalty (0.79, p ⬍ 0.01), advocacy participation (0.86, p ⬍ 0.01) and functional
participation (0.71, p ⬍ 0.01).

Nomological validity
Nomological validity refers to the degree to which predictions from a formal theoretical
network containing the concept under examination are confirmed (Liu et al., 2012). The
association of organizational commitment (OC) (De Lara and Rodriguez, 2007) and task
performance (Rapp et al., 2013) with OCB is well established. Therefore, OC and task
performance is used to establish criterion-related validity.

Method
Sample. The sample from self-reports is used to test the nomological validity (Table II).
Measures. Responses for both OC and task performance were given on a five-point
scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. OC is measured using 30
items from organizational commitment questionnaire (OCQ) (Mowday et al., 1979). Task
performance is adapted from McCarthy and Goffin (2001), including items such as:
• effectiveness in displaying job knowledge and skill;
• effectiveness in verbal and written communication;
• effectiveness in taking charge when required;
• degree to which they set high standards and strive to meet them; and
• quickness in learning to assess task performance.

Results
Figure 3 presents the significant association between OC and DOCB, OC and NOCB, OC
and ROCB, DOCB and task performance, NOCB and task performance and ROCB and
task performance. The model fit indicator scores are: CMIN/DF ⫽ 292.02; GFI ⫽ 0.96;
NFI ⫽ 0.96; CFI ⫽ 0.96; RMSEA ⫽ 0.398.

Supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviour

Method
Sample. The sample profile of supervisors and subordinates is presented in Table II. To
avoid the self-serving bias, the scale was administered to supervisors to rate their
subordinates. To maintain the independence of the supervisor ratings, each supervisor
rated only one subordinate. The participant’s supervisor was requested to fill in the
questionnaire. A total of 1,440 supervisors were sent questionnaires by e-mail, and a
total of 992 participants responded. The eligible responses totalled 571. The measure
asks supervisors to rate the OCB of subordinates on a five-point scale ranging from
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.
 Organizational
DOCB
Citizenship
behaviour
0.142**
0.779**

1.20**
Organizational
Commitment
0.696**
NOCB
Task
Performance
971
0.413**

0.116**

Figure 3.
Nomological validity
**(p < 0.01) ROCB using self-reports

Results
The model was tested on the data provided by the supervisors about their subordinates’
OCB using 36 items. It did not fit the data (␹2 ⫽ 1,822.631, df ⫽ 512, CMIN/DF ⫽ 3.56,
RMR ⫽ 0.76, GFI ⫽ 0.859, NFI ⫽ 0.941 and CFI ⫽ 0.957; RMSEA ⫽ 0.067).
The model obtained after removing two items (Items 13 and 24) from NOCB and Item
26 from ROCB improved the fitness of the model significantly (␹2 ⫽ 1,358.706, df ⫽ 428,
CMIN/DF ⫽ 3.175, RMR ⫽ 0.069, GFI ⫽ 0.910, NFI ⫽ 0.950, CFI ⫽ 0.965, and RMSEA ⫽
0.062). The regression estimates are presented in Figure 4. Table IV presents the
descriptive and correlational analysis of the supervisor-rated OCB.

Scale properties
Given the paucity of relevant supervisor-rated OCB data, the current paper tests only
Cronbach’s alpha reliability and nomological validity.

Cronbach’s alpha reliability

The reliability is as follows: DOCB ⫽ 0.896, NOCB ⫽ 0.928 and ROCB ⫽ 0.963.

Nomological validity using supervisor-rated organizational citizenship behaviour

Method. The measure asks supervisors to rate the OCB, OC and task performance of
subordinates on a five-point scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.
Results. Table IV presents the correlation matrix of supervisor-rated DOCB, NOCB,
ROCB, OC and task performance. Figure 5 presents the model tested on the data
provided by the supervisors about their subordinates (model fit summary: CMIN/DF ⫽
18.853, GFI ⫽ 0.97, NFI ⫽ 0.98, CFI ⫽ 0.98 and RMSEA ⫽ 0.06).

Rule-bounded organizational citizenship behaviour

Method
ROCB is one dimension that allowed the researcher to validate the dimension through
secondary data. To test ROCB, author analysed job description. All the elements of OCB
were individually searched in the job description. The frequency of overlap between
OCB elements and job requirement in the job description (JDs) were examined.
IJOA I. 1

24,5 I. 2

I. 3
0.78
0.74

0.68
I. 4
0.75
I. 5 NOCB
0.73
I. 6
0.75

972 I. 7

I. 8
0.76 –0.27
0.64 I. 14
I. 9 0.70
I. 15 0.94
I. 10 0.61
I. 16 0.92
0.73
I. 11
I. 17 0.92
0.72
I. 12 0.93
I. 18
0.91 0.00
NOCB
I. 19
0.91
I. 20
0.94
I. 25
I. 21 0.92
I. 27 0.95
I. 22 0.91
I. 28 0.93
I. 23 0.92 0.55
I. 29 0.94

I. 30 0.95

I. 31 0.94
0.95
Figure 4. I. 32
0.95 ROCB
Regression estimates I. 33
0.95
using I. 34
0.95
supervisor-rated I. 35
0.95
OCB I. 36
0.94

Serial no. Mean SD 1 2

1 DOCB 2.01 0.58

Table IV. 2 NOCB 2.55 1.20 ⫺0.275**
Correlation matrix of 3 ROCB 2.79 1.31 0.000 0.507**
supervisor-rated
OCB dimensions Note: ** p ⬍ 0.01

Sample. Participants were requested to provide their job description, and 1,320 job
descriptions were collected. To further validate the overlap between elements of OCB
and formal job requirement, about 246 organizations participated and shared their job
decsription database. In all, 2,329 job descriptions were received. The industry details
are given in Table V. The objective was to get organization-approved job descriptions to
ensure greater validity. Therefore, no other method or sources such as advertisements
were used.

Results
Job descriptions are analysed by calculating the number of job descriptions that include
the OCB themes identified by Podsakoff et al. (2000). Figure 6 presents the analysis of
JDs directly received from the participants and reveals that more than 50 per cent of job
descriptions include five major themes of OCB. Figure 7 presents the analysis of JDs
received from participating organizations and indicates that more than 61 per cent of job
 Organizational
SDOCB
Citizenship
behaviour
0.497**
0.075

0.205**
Organizational
Commitment
0.133**
SNOCB
Task 973
Performance
0.750**

1.204** Figure 5.
Nomological validity
using
supervisor-rated
**(p < 0.01) SROCB OCB

Serial no. Industry Total no.

1 Automobiles 4
2 Chemicals and fertilizers 1
3 FMCG 2
4 Healthcare 1
5 Infrastructure 1
6 Insurance 1
7 Logistic 1
8 Media and entertainment 1
9 Metals 2 Table V.
10 Oil and gas 1 Profile of the
11 Pharmaceutical 2 industries
12 Power 6 participated in job
13 Professional firms and services 2 description analysis

descriptions include five major themes of OCB. Helping behaviour is part of roles and
responsibilities, largely in the form of interpersonal facilitation. In the case of
sportsmanship, only two job descriptions mentioned optimistic/positive attitude as part
of the formal role description.

Discussion and implications

The study validates the three dimensions of OCB. The data support the consideration of
DOCB as one-dimensional and two newly proposed dimensions of OCB. The study
provides a set of indicators of DOCB, NOCB and ROCB that behave as expected in terms
of both statistical and theoretical criteria. The findings from EFA, CFA and
measurement properties validate the argument that employees display elements of
citizenship behaviour because of predisposition, norms of the organization and formal
job requirements. The one-dimensional nature of DOCB suggests that an employee with
a predisposition to display OCB is likely to display it across the themes of OCB. The
support for NOCB and ROCB strongly suggests that employees display elements of
IJOA 100

24,5 90
83.91
79.29
80

974 70 67.8
63.07
61.09
60

50

40

30 28.2

20
Figure 6.
Percentage of OCB
elements in formal 10
job descriptions of
participants 0.09
0
participated Helping Behavior Sportsmanship Organizational Organizational Initiative Civic Virtue Self-development
Loyalty Compliance

100

90

83 82
80
79 78.5

70

60 58

50

40

30

Figure 7.
20
Percentage of OCB
elements in formal
job descriptions 10
5
collected from 2
multiple 0
organizations Helping Behavior Sportsmanhsip Organizational Organizational Initiative Civic Virtue Self-Development
Loyalty Compliance
OCB because of normative pressure and due to an overlap of elements of OCB with Organizational
formal job requirements. Therefore, the measurement of mere elements of OCB might Citizenship
not lead to accurate assessment.
Item-wise analysis indicates that items related with helping behaviour,
behaviour
sportsmanship and civic virtue loaded on DOCB, whereas items related with individual
initiative, generalized compliance and self-development did not load significantly. This
could be possibly because these elements are part of formal job requirements. 975
While the literature does not clearly mention normative aspects of OCB, there are
nevertheless a small number of references in the literature suggesting the influence of
norms on OCB. For instance, Wei et al. (2012) found that OCBs performed by co-workers
influence the extent to which each employee exhibits OCB. Similarly, organizational
socialization (Cavus, 2012) has been found to be associated with pro-social behaviour.
OCB is positively associated with the performance of task-interdependent groups but
has a neutral to negative association with the performance of task-independent groups
(Nielsen et al., 2012). Organizational characteristics like leadership and the
characteristics of top management influence an employee’s tendency to display OCB
through culture (Turnipseed and Turnipseed, 2013) and communication from top
management (Haigh and Pfau, 2006). In a relatively recent study, transformational
leadership was found to influence change-oriented OCB (López-Domínguez et al., 2013).
This could be further validated by examining the dimension of NOCB through the lenses
of the culture and vision of the organization (Teh et al., 2012).
Creativity, performance benchmarks, high quality of services/products and other
such elements of OCB lead to high performance. In the face of fierce competition,
organizations therefore expect OCB from employees as a part of their mandatory job
responsibilities. Elements of OCB relating to five of its major themes were found in more
than 61 per cent of job descriptions and the author estimates that the qualitative
inferences from the job descriptions might increase these percentages. OCB involves
going beyond in-role and minimally required duties, which differentiates it from in-role
performance. However, in global organizations, the line between DOCB and ROCB is
becoming hazy. As the literature indicates a greater need to be precise about OCB
measurement, measuring ROCB thus becomes critical, as measuring elements that are
part of a job description under the umbrella of OCB could be misleading.
The typology brings attention to the OCB that is displayed due to the employee’s
predisposition, norms of the organization and formal job requirements. The scales of
OCB in the literature can provide an accurate assessment of OCB as a construct only
when there is no overlap of elements of OCB with roles, responsibilities and norms of the
organization.
The literature suggests that OCB is associated with favourable outcomes for
organizations. This is further confirmed in the current study, where all the dimensions
of OCB are significantly associated with task performance. It is likely that the
dimensions identified in this paper will influence the antecedents and consequences of
OCB differently. Given the significant association between NOCB and task
performance, organizations can channel the NOCB by ensuring the fit between
employee characteristics and organizational characteristics; for instance,
person-organization fit positively mediates the association between ethical culture and
OCB (Ruiz-Palomino and Martínez-Cañas, 2014). Providing an encouraging and
motivating environment will have a greater long-term positive impact on the employee
IJOA and the organization. Further, in a study, it was revealed that OCB mediates the
24,5 relationship between high involvement work processes and organizational performance
(Kizilos et al., 2013). The findings indicate that the structure and process of an
organization can influence the tendency to display OCB.
The study makes a very significant contribution to the literature of OCB by
drawing attention to the boundaries of OCB, which are likely to bring significant
976 changes in the nomological network of OCB. The literature on OCB is rooted in the
initial definition proposed by Organ (1988). If we follow the same definition, we need
to extend the contents of OCB that are still not part of job descriptions and those that
are not being tacitly forced (NOCB) on employees or else we need to redefine OCB
according to the radical changes that organizations have experienced. The findings
of the current research clearly indicate that the contents of OCB overlap with
elements that are part of job descriptions; therefore, the current research makes a
contribution by indicating the pressing need to control this overlap to have a true
measure of OCB. We need to rethink all these factors of OCB to make it more
applicable for current organizations operating in competitive and uncertain
environments where the boundary between roles, responsibilities and discretionary
behaviour keeps changing. The author is hopeful that this paper will trigger debate
about the measurement issues of OCB emerging from the radical environments in
which organizations are forced to operate.

Limitations and future research

The strength of the study is that it considers both self-report and supervisor-rated
OCB. It facilitated the reduction of potential issues associated with common method
bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, the study, like any other research, has its
limitations. Limitations include the usage of cross-sectional data; therefore, no
causal inference can be made regarding the relationships in this study. The
researcher believes that it is a good start to measure the factors of OCB; however, the
author does not believe that the current item pool of the DOCB and NOCB accounts
for all of the themes of OCB that are central to OCB. Further, organizations involved
in the validation segment of the study were private sector organizations.
Generalization to other sectors requires caution.
The study contributes to research by dealing with a number of the measurement
issues of OCB and by initiating the debate over the relevance of the existing contents of
OCB. This research aligns with the literature on OCB in dynamic organizations and
directs attention to issues that may become critical in the future. Do we need to discover
some new elements of OCB that do not overlap with job descriptions to do justice to the
essence of OCB? Are the current elements sufficient or is it just a matter of degree? The
author encourages researchers to extend the research on types and dimensions of OCB.
The nature of normative pressure influences the association between NOCB and
favourable organizational outcomes differently; therefore, the proposed dimensions
need to be further examined.
There is a scope to examine variation in OCB elements in role descriptions among
different designations, levels, functions and sectors. Individual level antecedents like
age (Gyekye and Haybatollahi, 2015), gender (Schusterschitz et al., 2014), personality
(O’Connell et al., 2001) and individual’s attachment style (Desivilya et al., 2006) influence
forms of OCB. Further, organizational and cultural contexts influence OCB (Paillé, 2009)
Therefore, the author recommends analysis of individual- and organizational-level Organizational
antecedents of NOCB and DOCB. Such an examination will provide a comprehensive Citizenship
view of the extent to which the historical elements of OCB are included in in-role
behaviour. It will contribute in defining the boundaries of OCB. This article proposes a
behaviour
further examination of the relationship between the three given dimensions of OCB in
different cultural settings:
Q1. How does ROCB impact the display of the other two dimensions of OCB and vice 977
versa?
Q2. How is the nomological network of OCB different from the nomological network
of proposed dimensions?
The exhaustive examination of elements/roles that are mandatory to perform and no
longer part of OCB for organizations will provide further clarity in understanding
OCB.

Conclusion
In summary, the paper presents the three dimensions of OCB referred to as DOCB,
NOCB and ROCB. The study highlights that norms, culture and peer pressure in the
workplace make it necessary for employees to exhibit elements of OCB. It offers insight
into the constituents of OCB that are part of the job role and reveals that some contents
of OCB are no longer relevant as they belong to in-role behaviour.
Given the results of the present study, a final and significant question arises: Is OCB
limited to only these three dimensions or are there more dimensions to OCB in global
organizations?
References
Axelrod, R. (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Barnard, C.I. (1938), The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
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.
Baumgartner, H. and Hombur, C. (1996), “Applications of structural equation modeling in
marketing and consumer research: a review”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 139-161.
Bergeron, D., Shipp, A.J., Rosen, B. and Furst, S.A. (2011), “Organizational citizenship behaviour
and career outcomes: the cost of being a good citizen”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 958-984.
Bettencourt, L.A., Gwinner, K.P. and Meuter, M.L. (2001), “A comparison of attitude, personality,
and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviours”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 29-41.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Boiral, O. and Paillé, P. (2012), “Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment:
measurement and validation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 109 No. 4, pp. 431-445.
Bolino, M.C., Klotz, A.C., Turnley, W.H. and Harvey, J. (2013), “Exploring the dark side of
organizational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 542-559.
IJOA Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2003), “Going the extra mile: cultivating and managing employee
citizenship behaviour”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 60-71.
24,5
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H. and Niehoff, B.P. (2004), “The other side of the story: reexamining
prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behaviour”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 229-246.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
978 contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (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.
Borman, W.C., White, L.A. and Dorsey, D.W. (1995), “Effects of ratee task performance and
interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 168-177.
Burns, N. and Grove, S. (2001), The Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique and
Utilization, W.B. Saunders, PA.
Campell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1959), “Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 81-105.
Carmines, E.G. and McIver, J.P. (1981), “Analyzing models with unobserved variables”, in
Bohrnstedt, G.W. and Borgatta, E.F. (Eds), Social Measurement: Current Issues, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Cavus, M.F. (2012), “Socialization and organizational citizenship behaviour among Turkish
primary and secondary school teachers”, Work, Vol. 43, pp. 361-368.
Chen, X.P., Hui, C. and Sego, D.J. (1998), “The role of organizational citizenship behaviour in
turnover: conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 922-931.
Chun, J.S., Shin, Y., Choi, J.N. and Kim, M.S. (2013), “How does corporate ethics contribute to
firm financial performance? The mediating role of collective organizational
commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 853-877.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., Morrow, P.C. and Kessler, I. (2006), “Serving two organizations: exploring
the employment relationship of contracted employees”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 561-583.
Davis, M.H. (1994), Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach, Brown & Benchmark, Madison,
WI.
De Lara, P.Z.M. and Rodriguez, T.F.E. (2007), “Organizational anomie as of the relationship
between an unfavorable attitudinal environment and citizenship behaviour (OCB) – an
empirical study among university administration and services personnel”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 843-866.
Deci, E.L. (1971), “Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 105-115.
Dekas, K.H., Bauer, T.N., Welle, B., Kurkoski, J. and Sullivan, S. (2013), “Organizational citizenship
behaviour, version 2.0: a review and qualitative investigation of OCBs for knowledge
workers at google and beyond”, The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 219-237.
Desivilya, H.S., Sabag, Y. and Ashton, E. (2006), “Prosocial tendencies in organizations”,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 22-42.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991), “Scale development: theory and applications”, Applied Social Research Organizational
Methods Series, Sage, Newbury Park, Vol. 26.
Citizenship
Eisenberg, N. and Fabes, R.A. (1988), “The development of prosocial behaviour from a life-span
perspective”, in Baltes, P.B., Featherman, D.L. and Learner, R.M. (Eds), Life-Span
behaviour
Development and Behaviour, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 173-202.
García-Carbonell, N., Martin-Alcazar, F. and Sanchez-Gardey, G. (2014), “Deepening the
consequences of double fit for organisational performance: the moderating role of 979
employees’ perceptions on the human resource management system”, Management
Research Review, Vol. 37 No. 12, pp. 1026-1048.
Gavino, M.C., Wayne, S.J. and Erdogan, B. (2012), “Discretionary and transactional human
resource practices and employee outcomes: the role of perceived organizational support”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 665-686.
George, J.M. and Bettenhausen, K. (1990), “Understanding prosocial behaviour, sales performance
and turnover: a group-level analysis in a service context”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 698-709.
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.
Graham, J.W. (1989), “Organizational citizenship behaviour: construct redefinition,
operationalization, and validation”, Unpublished Working Paper, Loyola University of
Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Graham, J.W. (1991), “An essay on organizational citizenship behaviour”, Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 249-270.
Guo, G. and Zhou, X. (2013), “Research on organizational citizenship behaviour, trust and
customer citizenship behaviour”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 8
No. 16, pp. 86-90.
Gyekye, A.S. and Haybatollahi, M. (2015), “Organizational citizenship behaviour”, International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 285-301.
Haigh, M.M. and Pfau, M. (2006), “Bolstering organizational identity, commitment, and citizenship
behaviours through the process of inoculation”, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 295-316.
Hoffman, B.J., Blair, C.A., Meriac, J.P. and Woehr, D.J. (2007), “Expanding the criterion domain? A
quantitative review of the OCB literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2,
pp. 555-566.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modelling: sensitivity to under
parameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 424-453.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-55.
Institute for Scientific Information (2013), available at: www.webofknowledge.com
Jiao, C., Richards, D.A. and Hackett, R.D. (2013), “Organizational citizenship behaviour and role
breadth: a meta-analytic and cross-cultural analysis”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 697-714.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 31-36.
IJOA Katz, D. (1964), “The motivational basis of organizational behaviour”, Behavioural Science, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 131-146.
24,5
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966), The Social Psychology of Organizations, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York,
NY.
980 Kim, Y., Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D. and Johnson, R.E. (2013), “Why and when do motives matter?
An integrative model of motives, role cognitions, and social support as predictors of OCB”,
Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 121 No. 2, pp. 231-245.
Kizilos, M.A., Cummings, C. and Cummings, T.G. (2013), “How high-involvement work processes
increase organization performance: the role of organizational citizenship behaviour”,
Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 413-436.
Koslowsky, M. and Dishon-Berkovits, M. (2001), “Self-report measures of employee lateness:
conceptual and methodological issues”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 145-159.
Lee, K. and Allen, N.J. (2002), “Organizational citizenship behaviour and workplace deviance: the
role of affect and cognitions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 131-142.
Lepine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D.E. (2002), “The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behaviour: a critical review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 52-65.
Lievens, F. and Anseel, F. (2004), “Confirmatory factor analysis and invariance of an
organizational citizenship behaviour measure across samples in a Dutch-speaking
context”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 299-306.
Ling-yee, L. (2009), “Encouraging extra-role behaviour in a channel context: the role of economic,
social-, and justice-based sharedness mechanisms”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 195-201.
Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M. (1975), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Liu, L., Li, C. and Zhu, D. (2012), “A new approach to testing nomological validity and its
application to a second-order measurement model of trust”, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 12, pp. 950-975.
Lo, M.C., Ramayah, T. and Hui, J.K. (2006), “An investigation of leader member exchange effects
on organizational citizenship behaviour in Malaysia”, Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
López-Domínguez, M., Enache, M., Sallan, J.M. and Simo, P. (2013), “Transformational leadership
as an antecedent of change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 10, pp. 2147-2152.
McCarthy, J.M. and Goffin, R.D. (2001), “Improving the validity of letters of recommendation: an
investigation of three standardized reference forms”, Military Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 199-222.
MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, P. and Fetter, R. (1991), “Organizational citizenship behaviour and
objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’
performance”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 1,
pp. 123-150.
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 Podsakoff, N.P. (2011), “Challenge-oriented organizational Organizational
citizenship behaviours and organizational effectiveness: do challenge-oriented behaviours
really have an impact on the organization’s bottom line?”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64
Citizenship
No. 3, pp. 559-592. behaviour
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Rich, G.A. (1999), “Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance”, Working Paper, Indiana University.
Moorman, R.H. (1991), “Relation between organizational justice and organizational citizenship 981
behaviours: do equity perceptions influence employee citizenship?”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 127-133.
Moorman, R.H. and Blakely, G.L. (1995), “Individualism– collectivism as an individual difference
predictor of organizational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 127-142.
Morrison, E.W. (1994), “Role definitions and organizational citizenship behaviour: the importance
of the employee’s perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6,
pp. 1543-1567.
Morrison, E.W. (1996), “Organizational citizenship behaviour as a critical link between HRM
practices and service quality”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 493-512.
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. and Van Scotter, J.R. (1994), “Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 4,
pp. 475-480.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), “The measurement of organizational
commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 224-247.
Nielsen, T.M., Bachrach, D.G., Sundstrom, E. and Halfhill, T.R. (2012), “Utility of OCB:
organizational citizenship behaviour and group performance in a resource allocation
framework”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 668-694.
Norman, D. and Olaf, H. (1963), “An experimental application of the delphi method to the use of
experts”, Management Science, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 458-467.
O’Connell, M.S., Doverspike, D., Norris-Watts, C. and Hattrup, K. (2001), “Predictors of
organizational citizenship behaviour among Mexican retail salespeople”, The International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 272-280.
Omar, A. (2009), “The moderating role of interpersonal justice on the relationship between
Eysenckian personality dimensions and employee voice and employee silence”, in
Antoniou, A.G., Cooper, C.L., Chrousos, G.P., Speilberger, C.D. and Eysenck, M.W. (Eds),
Handbook of Managerial Behaviour and Occupational Health, Edward Elgar Publishing,
Northampton, MA, pp. 143-156.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Solider Syndrome,
Lexington Books, Lexington, KY.
Organ, D.W. (1990), “The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behaviour”, in
Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, Vol. 12, pp. 43-72.
Organ, D.W. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989), “Cognitive versus affective determinants of
organizational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1,
pp. 157-164.
IJOA Paillé, P. (2009), “Assessing organizational citizenship behaviour in the french context: evidence
for the four dimensional model”, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,
24,5 Vol. 143 No. 2, pp. 133-146.
Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R. and Sullivan, J.J. (2003), Making Sense of Factor Analysis the Use of
Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Healthcare Research, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
982 Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Blume, B.D. (2009), “Individual- and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviours: a
meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 122-141.
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1989), A Second Generation Measure of Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behaviours and sales unit
effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 351-363.
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1995), “An examination of substitutes for leadership within
a levels of analysis framework”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 289-328.
Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behaviour
and the quantity and quality of work group performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 262-270.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behaviours and their effects on trust, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviours”, 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 behaviours: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestion for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-563.
Poropat, A.E. and Jones, L. (2009), “Development and validation of a unifactorial measure of
citizenship performance”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82
No. 4, pp. 851-869.
Rapp, A.A., Bachrach, D.G. and Rapp, T.L. (2013), “The influence of time management skill on the
curvilinear relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and task
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 4, pp. 668-677.
Rioux, S.M. and Penner, L.A. (2001), “The causes of organizational citizenship behaviour: a
motivational analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 1306-1314.
Ruiz-Palomino, P. and Martínez-Cañas, R. (2014), “Ethical culture, ethical intent, and
organizational citizenship behaviour: the moderating and mediating role of
person– organization fit”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 95-108.
Schusterschitz, C., Stummer, H. and Geser, W. (2014), “Going the extra-mile: a question of
attachment orientations and gender?”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 356-371.
Settoon, R.P. and Mossholder, K.W. (2002), “Relationship quality and relationship context as
antecedents of person and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behaviour”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 255-267.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), “Organizational citizenship behaviour: its nature
and antecedents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 653-663.
Snell, R.S. and Wong, Y.L. (2007), “Differentiating good soldiers from good actors”, Journal of Organizational
Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 883-909.
Citizenship
Spector, P.E. (2013), “Introduction: the dark and light sides of organizational citizenship
behaviour”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 540-541.
behaviour
Stryker, S. and Serpe, R.T. (1982), “Commitment, identity salience, and role behaviour: theory and
research example”, in Ickes, W. and Knowles, E.S. (Eds), Personality, Roles and Social
Behaviour, Springer Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 99-218. 983
Teh, C.J., Boerhannoeddin, A. and Ismail, A. (2012), “Organizational culture and performance
appraisal process; effect on organizational citizenship behaviour”, Asian Business
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 471-484.
Temminck, E., Mearns, K. and Fruhen, L. (2013), “Motivating employees towards sustainable
behaviour”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 402-412.
Turnipseed, D.L. and Murkison, E. (2000), “A bi-cultural comparison of organization citizenship
behaviour: does the OCB phenomenon transcend national culture?”, The International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 200-222.
Turnipseed, P.H. and Turnipseed, D.L. (2013), “Testing the proposed linkage between
organizational citizenship behaviours and an innovative organizational climate”, Creativity
and Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 209-216.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L. and Parks, J.M. (1995), “Extra-role behaviours: in pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity-a bridge over muddied waters”, in Cummings, L.L. and
Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 17,
pp. 215-285.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behaviour:
construct redefinition, measurement and validation”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 765-802.
Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D. and Joireman, J. (2008), “In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact
of low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 1195-1207.
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviours: evidence of
construct and predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 108-119.
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.
Wayne, J.H. and Cordeiro, B.L. (2003), “Who is a good organizational citizen? Social perception
of male and female employees who use family leave”, Sex Roles, Vol. 49 Nos 5/6,
pp. 233-247.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Wei, X., Qu, H. and Ma, E. (2012), “Decisive mechanism of organizational citizenship behaviour in
the hotel industry – an application of economic game theory”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1244-1253.
Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Pierce, J.R. (2008), “Effects of task performance, helping, voice,
and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 125-139.
IJOA Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviours”, Journal of Management,
24,5 Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 601-617.
Yun, S., Takeuchi, R. and Liu, W. (2007), “Employee self-enhancement motives and job
performance behaviours: investigating the moderating effects of employee role ambiguity
and managerial perceptions of employee commitment”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
984 Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 745-756.
Zheng, W., Zhang, M. and Li, H. (2012), “Performance appraisal process and organizational
citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 732-752.

Further reading
Turnipseed, D.L. and Rassuli, A. (2005), “Performance perceptions of organizational citizenship
behaviours at work: a bi-level study among managers and employees”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 231-244.

About the author

Promila Agarwal is an Assistant Professor at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. She
did her PhD from FMS, Delhi. She is a “merit student” of University of Delhi. She has published in
national and international peer-reviewed journals of repute. Promila is an Article Editor for Sage
Open. She is recipient of Think Tank Research Scholarship from AonHewitt and Emerald/IAM
Management Research Fund Award, 2012. Her research interest includes talent management,
performance management systems, psychological contract and organizational citizenship
behaviour. Promila Agarwal can be contacted at: promila@iima.ac.in

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