The Causes of Organizational Citizenship Behavior A Motivational Analysis

Sheila M. Rioux
Department of Psychology University of South Florida
Louis A. Penner
Department of Psychology University of South Florida

ABSTRACT

This study addressed the role of motives in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Three motives were identified through factor analyses: prosocial values, organizational concern, and impression management. Scales that measured these motives and other variables known to covary with OCB were administered to 141 municipal employees and were correlated with self-, peer, and supervisor ratings of 5 aspects of OCB. Relative to the other motives, prosocial values motives were most strongly associated with OCB directed at individuals, and organizational concern motives were most strongly associated with OCB directed toward the organization. Each of the motives accounted for unique amounts of variance in OCB. The results suggest that motives may play an important role in OCB.

In recent years, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has gained the attention of many industrial—organizational psychologists ( Borman & Penner, 2001 ). The current interest in OCB can be traced back at least to Katz (1964) . Katz's thesis, subsequently made more explicit by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) , was that for organizations to operate successfully, their employees must be willing to do more than the minimal formal and specified technical aspects of their jobs. The assumed importance of OCB to organizational success has led to numerous attempts to identify its proximal and distal causes. The present study represents one such effort.

Most conceptualizations of OCB suggest that it has two major dimensions: altruism–prosocial behaviors that are directed at specific individuals or groups within the organization–and conscientiousness (or generalized compliance)–prosocial behaviors directed at the organization. In 1995, Organ and Ryan carried out a meta-analysis of the correlates of each OCB dimension. For both dimensions, the largest correlations were for attitudinal variables such as job satisfaction, (perceived) fairness, organizational commitment, and (perceived) leader consideration. Overall, personality traits and measures of affect (e.g., negativity) correlated weakly with the two dimensions of OCB. The only exception was the trait of conscientiousness ( Costa & McCrae, 1992 ). These findings led Organ and Ryan to conclude that if dispositional variables play a role in OCB, it is only to the extent that they affect thoughts and feelings about a job. It is difficult to dispute Organ and Ryan's claim about the importance of attitudinal variables as causes of OCB. However, more recent reviews of the literature (e.g., Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001 ; Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmitt, 1997 ) suggest that Organ and Ryan's conclusion about dispositional variables and OCB may have been a bit premature. To be more precise, these studies provide substantial evidence that individual differences in personality traits and affect account for significant amounts of variance in OCB.

The present study takes a somewhat different approach to the role of individual-differences variables in OCB. Specifically, we investigated whether personal motives are related to OCB. Much of the current research on the causes of OCB either implicitly or explicitly assumes that engaging in such behavior is a reaction or a response to an individual's perceptions of his or her job and the organization for which he or she works. However, Penner, Midili, and Kegelmeyer (1997) suggested that OCB may also be a proactive behavior; that is, people may consciously choose to engage in OCB because such behaviors meet certain needs or satisfy one or more motives. Furthermore, to understand the causes of these actions, one must identify the motives that underlie them. Penner et al. (1997) were not the only researchers to consider the role of motives in OCB (see, e.g., Bolino, 1999 ; Folger, 1993 ). However, unlike these other authors, Penner et al.'s (1997) interest in motives and OCB was explicitly based on a functional approach to human behavior. The functional approach to behavior focuses on the function or purpose served by a behavior ( Snyder, 1993 ). Identifying the purpose or purposes served by a particular behavior enables one to better understand it and why the person has performed it. This approach assumes that much of human behavior is motivated by a person's goals and needs. However, it does not assume that if two people engage in the same behavior, they have the same motives; nor does it assume that most behaviors serve only one motive. The same behavior may have multiple motives.

We know of no studies that have taken a functional approach to OCB. However, in recent years, several researchers (e.g., Snyder and his associates; see Clary et al., 1998 ; Omoto & Snyder, 1995 ) have used a functional approach to study volunteerism–the donation of time and effort to some charitable or service organization. They and others ( Clary & Orenstein, 1991 ; Penner & Finkelstein, 1998 ) have found significant and replicable associations among motives and the quantity and quality of volunteer activities.

These findings provided the theoretical impetus for the research reported here. There clearly are differences between volunteerism and OCB, but they also have some important characteristics in common. First, both are discretionary prosocial behaviors; people choose to volunteer and to engage in OCB. Second, both occur within an organizational context, and the recipients of the benefits of both OCB and volunteerism are either specific individuals associated with an organization or an organization itself. Third, unlike other kinds of prosocial actions (e.g., helping a family member), there is no strong sense of personal or social obligation to help. Finally, both kinds of prosocial behaviors typically occur over an extended period of time; they are not transitory responses to specific situations. These conceptual similarities and overlap between volunteerism and OCB led Penner et al. (1997) to propose that examining motives would further researchers' understanding of its causes. The present study empirically tested this proposal. To be specific, we developed a measure of motives for OCB. Then, in a field study, we measured motives and other variables previously shown to predict OCB. We expected that motives would correlate with OCB and explain variance in it not explained by other predictor variables.

Date: 2015-01-29; view: 1152