Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 1 15

Are good soldiers good?


Exploring the link between organization citizenship behavior and
personal ethics
David L. Turnipseed*
School of Business, Indiana-Purdue University, Neff 340, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, USA
Received 26 April 1999; received in revised form 10 October 2000; accepted 3 January 2001

Abstract

The good soldier syndrome, or organization citizenship behavior (OCB), is traditionally defined as extra-role behavior which serves to
advance the purposes of the organization. However, these behaviors may be ethical or unethical. Implicit in the definition of OCB is some role
of personal ethics: indeed, the various measures of OCB contain many items that are ethically based. This study examined the relationship
between ethics and organization citizenship, and found high correlations, with more ethical individuals being rated higher on OCB. More
ethical individuals were perceived to be more productive than less ethical workers. The differential contributions of individual citizenship
behaviors to productivity among more and less ethical individuals were also identified. Results suggest that the phenomenon
popularized as organizational citizenship behavior may be the manifestation of ethical behavior in the workplace. Identification of individual
behaviors among those comprising the OCB phenomenon that contribute the greatest to individual productivity suggests a time difference in
the results of good soldier behaviors. Some citizenship behaviors may have immediate results (e.g., obedience), while others (e.g., creativity)
may require some period before benefits are realized. New areas for research are presented. D 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Organizational citizenship behavior; Ethics; Good soldier syndrome; Individual productivity

1. Introduction Actions consistent with most definitions of OCB include


prosocial behaviors (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986), punctu-
Individuals in organizations exhibit a wide range of ality, helping others, innovating, and volunteering (Bate-
behaviors, from the minimalist who does the least possible man and Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988a). Counter-role
to maintain membership to those who go beyond expec- behavior (Staw and Boettger, 1990) and a lack of undesir-
tations, engaging in extra-role behavior to promote the able behaviors such as arguing, complaining, and finding
effective operation of the organization or to benefit others. fault with others (Organ, 1990) also describe these extra-
Extra-role behaviors that are discretionary, going beyond role behaviors. Smith et al. (1983) suggest that OCB is
those measured by formal job evaluations, and which are comprised of two distinct categories: altruism, or helpful
organizationally desirable, have been called organization behavior aimed at specific individuals in the organization,
citizenship behaviors (OCBs), or the good soldier syn- and generalized compliance, directed at the organization.
drome (Organ, 1988a). OCB is intended and perceived Smith et al. (1983) describe OCB compliance behaviors as
positively, and is done primarily to benefit someone or an impersonal sort of conscientiousness, more of a good
something (the organization) other than the actor (Van Dyne soldier or good citizen syndrome of doing things that are
et al., 1995). Organizational desirability, positive intent, and right and proper but for the sake of the system (p. 662).
positive other-perception suggest that OCB may be a value- Underlying each of the individual OCBs, as well as Smith
based phenomenon linked to individual ethical beliefs. et al.s (1983) classes, is the undercurrent of ethics: the
adjective good in good soldier directly imputes ethics
and values.
* Tel.: +1-219-481-6470. OCBs may be job related, and they advance the effective
E-mail address: turnipse@ipfw.edu (D.L. Turnipseed). operation of the organization, either directly or indirectly, but

0148-2963/02/$ see front matter D 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 2 9 6 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 1 7 - X
2 D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115

are not tied to the formal reward system (Organ, 1988a,b; of extra-role behaviors can be found in the organizational
Organ and Konofsky, 1989; Puffer, 1987; Williams and analysis of Barnard (1938) who emphasized the willing-
Anderson, 1991). Thus, failure to engage in these behaviors ness of persons . . . (p. 83) to contribute their energy to the
may not be formally penalized (Van Dyne et al.,1995). OCBs organization. This willingness has been described as spon-
may be performed by a member of an organization with the taneous, cooperative, and protective behaviors, and actions
intention of promoting the welfare of the individual, group, taken to enhance organizational image (Katz and Kahn,
or organization towards which the behavior is directed (Witt, 1966). These actions described by Barnard (1938) and Katz
1991). Deciding to engage in these actions promoting the and Kahn (1966) reveal individuals values or ethics, as
welfare of other individuals or of the organization is con- decisions are made to act in a manner that promotes the
sistent with an ethical decision. However, actions may be welfare of others.
taken, which promote the welfare of one at the expense of Job satisfaction has been a frequently examined correlate
another, and, consequently, may be unethical. In either of citizenship behavior (e.g., Bateman and Organ,1983;
event, ethics appears to be integral to OCB. Puffer, 1987; Organ, 1988a; Organ and Konofsky, 1989;
Five behaviors comprise OCB in Organs (1988a) Organ and Lingl, 1995). Satisfaction is an affective response
conceptualization: altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, con- to various work-related factors and to the organization
scientiousness, and civic virtue, each of which has an (Locke, 1976). The mood (satisfaction) may explain why
ethical context. Examination of the early Bateman and individuals engage in OCB to repay the organization
Organ (1983) OCB instrument reveals a number of items (Schanke, 1991; Witt, 1991). Repaying ones employing
that are based on ethical behaviors, e.g., follows rules organization is a conscious, ethically based act, specifically,
conscientiously, helps others, not finding fault with others, returning something to the employer for having provided a
not interfering with others, going out of ones way to satisfying job.
protect other employees and organizational property, and Moods are internal states, and the role of individual
not wasting or harming company material or property. differences as moderators of response to organizational
These behaviors reflect individual ethics and are consis- stimuli has been well established (Staw et al., 1986). To
tent with Katz and Kahns (1966) description of the accept the idea that OCB is a spontaneous function of the
spontaneous and innovative behaviors necessary for effec- individual is to label it as a personality characteristic (which
tive organizations. includes values), and consequently, a factor that, although
In their OCB instrument, Smith et al. (1983) implicitly valuable to the organization, is not easily managed. The
focus on ethics with items including, makes innovative moderating effect of personality can alter and negate, as well
suggestions, volunteers, helps others, and avoids wasting as enhance, behavior in response to organizational stimuli,
time. Van Dyne et al. (1994) developed an OCB measure again suggesting an influence of individual ethics on cit-
that contains ethical behaviors such as: represents organ- izenship behaviors.
ization favorably, defends organization against outside
threats and employee criticism, does not waste time, does
not waste organization resources, and shares ideas for new 2. Organization citizenship and ethics
projects. Other items consistent with various views of
ethics are: makes creative suggestions to coworkers, uses An argument may be made that OCB is simply ethical
professional judgement to assess right and wrong, does not behavior; however, examination of the two constructs
avoid extra duties, works beyond what is expected, and indicates clear differences. Ethics derives from the Greek
cooperates with others (Van Dyne et al., 1994). word ethos, which means character or custom (Solomon,
The existence of factors accounting for the positive and 1984). According to Solomon (1984), the etymology of
negative extra-role behaviors that influence productivity has the word suggests that its fundamental concerns are with
been acknowledged by both managers and union leaders individual character, including what it means to be a
(Katzell and Yankelovich, 1975). These extra-role behaviors good person, and the social rules of right and wrong
reflect in performance evaluations (Avila et al., 1988; DeNisi (morality), which govern ones conduct. Ethics and mor-
et al., 1984; Jackson et al., 1983; MacKenzie et al., 1991), ality cannot be separated and are commonly used synon-
influence taking part in employee participation programs ymously (Shaw, 1999).
(Graham and Verma, 1991), and may be a factor in job There is neither a universally accepted definition of
involvement, organization commitment, and self-esteem ethics nor a standard measure that allows an individual or
(Brockner and Guare, 1983; Inkson, 1978; Randall, 1987; event to be uniformly judged as ethical or unethical. Two
Schanke, 1991). A commonality of these behaviors is their individuals judged by many as highly ethical may have
basis in individual ethics. divergent views on such issues as capital punishment,
Causality of OCB has not been established, and various abortion, affirmative action, layoffs, plant closings, envi-
determinants have been theorized. Watson and Clark (1984) ronmental issues, or discrimination. Two ethical individuals
argue that OCB is a function of affect, while Organ and may act consistent with their values and arrive at different
Konofsky (1989) suggest a cognitive basis. A personal basis conclusions about a given decision, as the meaning of
D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115 3

ethical is individual specific. Family influences, religious However, utilitarianism has been criticized as being
values, personal standards, and needs influence the indi- unworkable, as one cannot always know what the future
viduals ethical conduct (Schermerhorn, 1999). An evalua- results of actions will be. It is unreasonable to expect people
tion of ethical behavior may be further confused by to make calculations regarding future happiness for others,
dissimilar roles: employees, managers, shareholders, and and if they do, it may be impossible to make them
consumers may view a given situation in different ways accurately. Utilitarianism focuses on the results of an action
(Ferrell et al., 2000). and not the character of the action, and is criticized because
Ethics must be evaluated with respect to personal values, some actions may be bad, even though they produce good.
which are the underlying beliefs and attitudes that are partial Utilitarianism is concerned with total happiness and not how
determinants of individual behavior. Values are the basic that happiness is distributed. Consequently, achieving the
convictions that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of greatest overall happiness may require that happiness for
existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite some be sacrificed (Shaw, 1999). OCB is not concerned
or converse mode of conduct or end-state . . . (Rokeach, with happiness or good for the majority, but rather with
1973, p. 5). They contain a judgmental element as they good for specific individuals (Smith et al., 1983), someone
convey an individuals ideas as to what is right and wrong in or something (Van Dyne et al., 1995). In its compensatory
both a content and intensity state (Robbins, 1998). These role, OCB is repayment to an organization (Schanke, 1991)
values vary among people, and, consequently, there are . . . rather than the intent to achieve good for the greatest
different interpretations of what behavior is ethical and number of people.
unethical in a given situation (Schermerhorn, 1999). A
difference between an ethical decision and a routine one is 2.3. Moral rights
the amount of emphasis on personal values as the decision is
being made (Ferrell and Fraedrich, 1994). The moral rights view considers behavior ethical if
Due to the individual component, there are several people are treated impartially and fairly, respecting the
different and conflicting points of view or interpretations fundamental rights of life, liberty, and fair treatment. This
of ethics. approach is based on the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson
and John Locke, and in a contemporary context extends to
2.1. Egoism such issues as privacy, due process, free speech, and health
and safety issues (Schermerhorn, 1999). Moral rights are
The individualism or egoism belief is that the pursuit of distinguished from legal rights as they emanate from rela-
ones long-term self-interests constitutes ethical behavior. tionships, roles, and circumstances of individuals. Individ-
Due to the long-term nature of egoism, unethical acts such uals, rather than society are the locus of moral rights. For
as cheating for short-term gains should not be tolerated example, if each human has the moral right to equal
(Schermerhorn, 1999; Shaw, 1999). Problems with egoism consideration of a job regardless of gender or ethnic origin,
include its lack of sound theoretical foundation (many then gender and ethnic origin cannot be criteria even though
people occasionally act in ways contrary to their long-term their use may result in greater net utility (Shaw, 1999). Good
self-interest), the theory is not a moral theory (ones long- citizenship behavior is individual initiative, which promotes
run best interests may conflict with those of others), and the welfare of the target individual, group, or organization
blatant wrongs are ignored. Cheating, lying, discrimination, (Witt, 1991). OCB includes such behaviors as promoting the
and even murder could possibly be in ones long-term best organizations goods and services, defending the organiza-
interests (Shaw, 1999). Although one with egoistic beliefs tion against outside threats and employee criticism, involve-
may engage in citizenship behavior, this view of ethics is ment in outside groups for the good of the organization (Van
not synonymous with OCB. Citizenship behaviors are Dyne et al., 1994), and following rules conscientiously
altruistic (Smith et al., 1983) and done primarily to benefit (Bateman and Organ, 1983). There is no consideration,
someone or something other than the actor (Van Dyne implicitly or explicitly, of fundamental rights. In many
et. al., 1995). cases, OCBs may violate human rights, as when an indi-
vidual works to promote the interest of someone or the
2.2. Utilitarianism organization, and advancing these interests violates the
human rights of others.
The utilitarian approach considers actions as moral if
they do the greatest good for the most people (Schermer- 2.4. Justice
horn, 1999) or produce the . . . greatest happiness for all
(Shaw, 1999, p. 49). This view is founded in the works of Ethical behavior can also be viewed as forms of justice:
John Stuart Mill, the 19th century philosopher who attemp- either procedural or distributive. The justice view is
ted to assess the moral implications of actions in terms of grounded in the belief that ethical decisions result in
their consequences. By utilitarian standards, an action is impartial and fair treatment according to rules and stand-
good if it promotes the general welfare more than any other. ards of behavior (Schermerhorn, 1999). Distributive justice
4 D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115

is based on the evaluation of outcomes or the results of 3. Hypothesis generation


relationships and may be evaluated by benefits and equity.
Procedural justice is based on the processes and activities The present study addresses the ethical component of
which produce the outcomes. Both forms of justice relate citizenship behavior, and the influence of ethics on in-role
to evaluations of fairness, such as fair treatment and due behavior (productivity). It is hypothesized that individuals
rewards (Ferrell et al., 2000). An example of distributive considered more ethical will also be perceived as exhibiting
justice is providing equal consideration for promotion for a higher degree of OCB than less ethical workers, and that
women and men with equivalent qualifications and expe- more ethical workers will contribute a greater amount to
riences. Providing the same full hearing of a harassment productivity. Citizenship behaviors aimed at others may not
case against a senior executive as a shop supervisor is have an immediate impact on organizational productivity as
procedural justice (Schermerhorn, 1999). Obviously fair, great as those targeted at the organization. Prior research has
impartial, and due rewards are subject to a wide range ignored the effect of individual citizenship behaviors, treat-
of individual interpretations. Justice may not be considered ing OCB as a singular phenomenon in which all behaviors
in OCB when an individual seeks, for example, to protect apparently work equally and in unison. This issue is
the organization against employee criticism, produce as addressed and the citizenship behaviors that are the greatest
much as capable, or produce highest quality of work contributors to productivity are identified. Demonstrating
regardless of circumstances. Actions taken to repay the that OCB is an ethically based phenomena, and that ethical
organization may be citizenship behaviors (Schanke, 1991; behavior is linked to productivity will add to the knowledge
Witt, 1991), but are not necessarily concerned with justice of these desirable, extra-role behaviors and business ethics,
either in process or outcome. while guiding future research in OCB.
Several measures of OCB have been developed, but
there are significant inconsistencies in their dimensional-
2.5. Relativism ity. Researchers have reported two dimensions (Graham,
1986; Smith et al., 1983), three dimensions (Organ and
Some views of ethics are situational. The moral relativ- Konofsky, 1989; Turnipseed and Murkison, 1996), four
ism perspective of ethics may be stated in either an dimensions (MacKenzie et al., 1991), and five dimensions
individual or group formulation as anything that an indi- (Moorman, 1991; Organ, 1988a; Van Dyne et al., 1994).
vidual (group) sincerely believes to be right or wrong is This dimensional disparity is an important concern, and
ethical or unethical for that individual (group) (Robin, due to the differences among instruments and results,
2000). Cultural relativism is the belief that ethical behavior none of these prior structures should be accepted as ideal.
in foreign cultures should be guided by the rights and Podsakoff et al. (1993) argue that the OCB factors depend
wrongs in the foreign setting (Donaldson, 1996). Moral on the sample, suggesting that the dimensions may be
relativism on the individual and group level are incompat- organization specific.
ible: In the group formulation, the individual must abide The Van Dyne et al.(1994) instrument was used in this
by the norms of the group even though the group ethics study. This scale contains a greater number of items than
and personal ethics conflict. Ethics under the relativist most, providing a more exhaustive array of behaviors to
perspective may not be consistent, as individuals and evaluate for good citizenship. The unique dimensional
groups may constantly change their beliefs and thus their structure for the subject organization was determined, and
moral standards. In addition, multiple group memberships consistent with Smith et al. (1983) and Williams and
(e.g., country citizen, church member, political party) may Anderson (1991), OCB is expected to be multidimensional,
result in conflicting moral beliefs among which the indi- and comprised of two classes of extra-role behaviors
vidual must choose. Common sense refutations . . . those directed towards the organization, and towards indi-
(Robin, 2000, p. 20) are easy, as even an individuals viduals in the organization.
sincere belief that it is acceptable to harm another does not The organization and its environment are social systems
make such actions morally right. Citizenship behavior is (Katz, 1964; Scott et al., 1981), and, thus, consist of many
intended to benefit another or the organization (Van Dyne different behaviors (Smith et al., 1983). Katz (1964) noted
et al., 1995), and may or may not reflect the actors beliefs that An organization which depends solely upon its blue-
of right and wrong. prints of prescribed behavior is a very fragile social system
Citizenship behavior and ethical behavior are theoret- (p. 132), implying that successful organizations must rely
ically and practically different phenomena. One can suc- upon extra-role (citizenship) behaviors beyond its blue-
cessfully engage in citizenship behavior that is ethical or prints. These organization behaviors are expected to range
unethical by one or all of the ethical views. However, on a continuum from very ethical to unethical.
individual ethics may be partially responsible for the ini- Ethical behavior is not viewed as a dichotomous vari-
tiative to engage in extra-role activities, and/or for the able in which an individuals actions are judged as either
character (individual or organization directed), frequency, ethical or unethical, but rather as a general predisposition
and intensity of those actions. of behavior. Individuals may be perceived by others as
D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115 5

generally ethical or unethical, i.e., their behaviors are 1990). Studies have shown that ethical behavior can be both
towards one or the other end of the ethical continuum. positively and negatively related to high organizational
Ethical rules are not categorical, and thus have clear performance (Aupperle et al., 1985; Ullman, 1985). Accord-
exceptions: Sound ethics requires that rules sometimes be ing to Vogel (1988), ethics is not a barrier to business
broken (Pastin, 1986). Clearly, there is subjectivity in success, but neither are they a requirement.
judging ethical behaviors. Task performance includes two separate types of behav-
In 1513, Machiavelli, in The Prince, argued that worth- iors: one is the set of activities that directly transforms raw
while ends justify efficient means. The dilemma is who materials into the organizations final output, the other is
decides whether the ends are sufficiently meritorious to contextual behavior, which includes extra-role activities.
justify the means. This dilemma continues today as ques- Given that citizenship behaviors contribute to effective
tions of right and wrong (proper conduct) and good and bad performance of the organization, and, consequently, its
(questions of ends) are weighed. Means and ends come into competitiveness (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; Smith et al.,
conflict, and their conflict constitutes the core of most 1983; Organ and Konofsky, 1989), a productivity function
ethical dilemmas (Marcus, 1993, p. 88). Individuals have of OCB is directly implied. The focus of this study is the
different points of view and different value systems, and, link between OCB (which results in some level of produc-
consequently, their ethical beliefs are not always consistent. tivity) and ethics: Given the lack of guidance from the
Unethical behaviors may further the ends of the organization literature, the link between OCB and productivity in
through such acts as cover-ups, costly law and regulation more and less ethical groups is evaluated by the
evasion, selling more expensive products when less expen- following exploratory hypothesis:
sive items would better fit the customers needs, and Hypothesis 2: Workers considered more ethical will
unfairly gaining market share. According to Jones have more and stronger links between OCB and
(1997), 48% of all workers have committed unethical acts productivity than those considered less ethical.
within the past year.
A basic reason to pursue OCB is its proposed relation-
Ethical or unethical actions may be citizenship behaviors
ship to organization effectiveness. Hypothesis 2 considers
if they advance the organization. Many acts considered
whether more or less ethical individuals are perceived
unethical by some can be beneficial to the organization, at
as more productive their citizenship behavior is not
least in the short term. Consider a salesman selling a
considered. Therefore, differences in OCB among the
US$3500 computer when a US$2000 model would meet
more and less ethical groups must be evaluated.
the customers need. This action may be judged organiza-
This study was designed to investigate the ethical
tionally desirable and, thus, an OCB, but it could also be
aspects of OCB, and is exploratory in nature; consequently,
considered unethical. Ones ethical standards typically deal
there are no preconceived ideas of which dimensions of
with matters of importance to self and others, are held by
good soldier behavior make the greatest contribution to
personal conviction, and unaffected by formal rules and
productivity, or whether there is any difference in the
regulations (Valesquez, 1988) consistent with definitions of
citizenship behaviors of more or less ethical individ-
OCB. This raises the issue of whether individuals differ-
uals. According to Organ and Konofsky (1989) OCB
entiate between ethical behavior and OCB. To determine
derives practical importance from the premise that it repre-
whether ethical behavior is linked to OCB, we have the
sents contributions . . . ( p. 159), which presumably
following the hypothesis:
enhance organizational effectiveness. Organ (1988a, p. 4)
Hypothesis 1: Individuals considered ethical will also be describes the basis of OCB as behavior . . . that in the
viewed as good soldiers, rated higher in OCB than aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organ-
individuals perceived to be less ethical. ization. Congruent with prior research, OCB is hypothe-
sized to contribute to the functioning of the organization
Williams and Anderson (1991) suggest that individual
and exhibit positive linkages. However, there are two
traits influence social relations, and may also be related to
classes of citizenship behaviors (organizational and other-
productivity. Individual mood states are known to influence
directed) and a multidimensional factor structure is
the probability of prosocial behaviors (Berkowitz and
expected. Consequently, the dimensions may vary in their
Conner, 1966; Isen and Levin, 1972; Levin and Isen,
relationships to productivity. With no clear direction from
1975). These behaviors (OCB) lubricate the social machi-
the literature, two exploratory, competing hypotheses are
nery of the organization (Smith et al., 1983, p. 654).
considered; first:
However, many citizenship behaviors including other-direc-
ted actions that advance the social processes may not Hypothesis 3a: Citizenship behaviors of more and
contribute to productivity (Schanke, 1991), or they may less ethical groups are positively and differently
be considered unethical. related to productivity.
The robber barons who created many of todays great Engaging in citizenship behavior may reduce individual
corporations used methods that may be ethically question- productivity as the good soldiers job suffers while he or
able, yet, their fortunes continue (Bhide and Stevenson, she is helping a peer or otherwise engaging in prosocial
6 D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115

behavior (Schanke, 1991). Therefore, prosocial citizenship Loyalty, Social Participation, Advocacy Participation, and
behaviors may be organizationally functional or dysfunc- Functional Participation. Their factor structure explained
tional (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; Van Dyne et al., 1995) 36.1% of the variance, and included two factors which
whether or not they are perceived as ethical. To assess the contributed less than 5%.
possibility of a negative relationship between good citizen- Organ (1988a), in his early study of OCB, used high
ship behaviors and productivity, we have the following quantity of performance output as an index of in-role
alternative hypothesis: behavior (vs. the extra-role citizenship behaviors) promoting
Hypothesis 3b: Citizenship behaviors of more and organizational functions. That measure was included in the
less ethical groups are negatively and differently OCB instrument for consistency.
related to productivity. The present analysis required eigenvalues greater than
1.0, plus a minimum contribution of at least 5% for develop-
OCB has been a recognized phenomena for several years,
ment of a factor. A minimum factor loading of .40 was
however, the primary research focus has not been on
required for inclusion of any item in a factor.
individual citizenship behaviors, but rather on OCB as a
macro concept. Although some have suggested that OCB
may not promote effective organizational functioning (e.g.,
Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; Schanke, 1991; Van Dyne et 5. Methodology and rationale
al., 1995), their arguments have been based on a holistic
view. Individual actions, which in their aggregate comprise 5.1. Data collection
the OCB factors, may contribute differentially to productiv-
ity or may make no contribution. Organization-directed and Two copies of Van Dyne et al.s (1994) OCB instrument
other-directed behaviors may influence the organization were distributed to the respondents. Anonymity was
differently, and there may be an ethical base for certain assured with directions including: Do not put your name
good soldier behaviors. There is no guidance from prior on any materials, and when completed, seal the materials
research to guide formulation of this exploratory hypothesis. in the envelop provided. One copy of the OCB instrument
To identify OCB actions that are contributors to organiza- directed respondents to think about themselves, as objec-
tional functioning, as measured by productivity, and which tively as possible, and answer the statements. The
of these behaviors are considered ethically based, we have responses of this group are referred to as the total or
the following hypothesis: self-evaluation group and were used to develop the
Hypothesis 4: Specific citizenship behaviors within the factor structure.
OCB factors of more and less ethical groups will In order to evaluate the ethical component of OCB, there
contribute differently to productivity. were two additional versions of the OCB instrument: one
version instructed the respondent to think of the . . . cow-
orker in your organization that you think acts in the most
4. Sample and instrument ethical, socially responsible manner . . .. Many may act
ethically, but choose the one that behaves that way the
4.1. Sample most. The second version of the OCB instrument asked
respondents to rate the . . . least ethical coworker . . ..
Respondents were 106 employees of a large company in Half of the respondents received the most ethical and half
the finance industry. The average age was 39 years (s = 8), received the least ethical version, and these two response
and the average work experience was 17.8 years(s = 8). The sets formed the more and less ethical groups.
gender distribution was 36% male and 64% females: highest
education obtained was 10% high school; 24% some col- 5.2. Assessment of ethical behavior
lege; and 66% with a college degree. Seniority in the
organization averaged between 10 and 15 years. Appropri- There was no definition of ethical behavior provided in
ate protection for human subjects was provided, including the instructions. Ethical behavior is acting consistent with
voluntary participation and anonymity of responses. ones personal values (Navran, 1992) and, thus, must vary
among individuals. Nelson and Quick (1997) suggest that
4.2. Instrument four individual differences affect ones ethical behavior:
values, locus of control, Machiavellianism, and cognitive
OCB was measured by the instrument developed by Van moral development. Ones definition of right, fair, and good
Dyne et al. (1994), which contains 34 items describing form his/her value system (Bhide and Stevenson, 1990),
various positive and negative work and interpersonal behav- which is unique to the individual. Although an individual is
iors. The negative behaviors are reverse scored to avoid the exposed to the value systems of the organization, super-
bias of negatively phrased statements. Van Dyne et al.s visors, customers, and others, as well as their own, personal
(1994) solution contained five factors, named Obedience, values tend to have the greatest allegiance (Bhide and
D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115 7

Stevenson, 1990). This reinforces the individual-specific and gender, which determine ones ethics, providing a
nature of ethics. definition of ethics to guide respondents as they chose
Whether an individual has an internal or external locus of more and less ethical coworkers would interject bias
control also influences ethics: Internals tend to make more into the data. Although the lack of a guide to ethical
ethical decisions than externals (Lefcourt, 1982). The indi- behavior may be denounced, there is no definition which
viduals level of cognitive moral development may affect could escape valid criticism. Consequently, respondents
ethical decisions, with higher levels being associated with were required to apply their individual evaluations to
more ethical behavior (Malinowski and Smith, 1985; Penn choose most and least ethical coworkers by behav-
and Collier, 1985). Womens moral development has been ioral observation.
argued to develop based on responsibility and relationship
as opposed to rights and rules for men (Gilligan, 1982). 5.3. Self-appraisal of OCB
Clearly, there are many confounding individual issues
involved in evaluating or classifying ethics. Self-evaluation is a departure from the majority of prior
Rationale for the use of self-appraisal is due to the unique studies of OCB. Many researchers (e.g., Bateman and
phenomenon of ethical behavior. Ethical standards of Organ, 1983; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Smith et al., 1983;
behavior are the means by which an individual decides Van Dyne et al., 1994) have used supervisory assessment.
whether his/her actions and those of others are right or According to Williams (1988), this approach has the advant-
wrong, fair or unfair, just or unjust (Hosmer, 1994). Obvi- age of providing complete and accurate appraisals of OCB
ously, each individual has his/her own ideas about ethics. with a better distinction between in-role and extra-role
When a manager judges subordinate ethics, one standard behaviors than that available from self-report, as well as
(that of the manager) is applied and the judgement is taken avoiding the contamination of common method variance.
to a different level than peer evaluation. Supervisory eval- This opinion has been questioned by Mackenzie et al.
uations of subordinates ethics may add the confounding (1991) and Vandenberg and Taylor (1997). Raters may
element of organizational level of analysis. There are differ- differ in their knowledge of a persons in-role and extra-
ent levels of ethical discourse: At the individual level, the role behaviors. Managers may be more familiar than cow-
concern is with personal and professional behavior. The orkers with in-role performance of employees (MacKenzie
next level is the organizational level where survival of the et al., 1991). However, supervisors familiarity with extra-
organization can conflict with individual standards of ethical role behavior, including, for example, whether the employee
conduct (Marcus, 1993), and supervisors are likely to represents the organization favorably to outsiders or the
operate at the organizational level. extent to which each employee helps coworkers to think for
In addition to a supervisors view of individual ethical themselves, must vary indirectly with span of control, and
behavior, the organization must be considered. The issue of also with degree of supervision exercised, type of work
whether the means justify the end, when the end is an (factory labor vs. professional), and the individual leader
organizational end, may result in a different conclusion than member relations.
if the end is at the individual level, when the supervisor acts The present study used self-report evaluation for the
in-role (Trevino and Nelson, 1995, p. 155) and does what total sample OCB, based on the premise that an individual
is expected in the supervisory role. The phenomenon of would know better than anyone whether or not, and the
differential association suggests that superiors strongly extent to which he/she engaged in the extra-role behaviors
influence the ethics of subordinates (Zey-Ferrell et al., of the OCB construct. Although other raters (e.g., cow-
1979). Managers are subject to organizational pressure to orkers) could have the same information, they may assess
perform and increase profits. Pressures from inside the OCB differently because they impart greater weight to
organization are a major predictor of unethical behavior, certain behaviors. Coworker evaluators may place more
as influenced by role set and differential association (Ferrell importance on behaviors that personally affect them
and Fraedrich, 1994). Supervisors may evaluate from an (MacKenzie et al., 1991).
ethical base which is different from that of the subordinates, Supervisor ratings may be biased by employees citizen-
due to organizational pressures and a different point of view. ship behaviors and their evaluations may be subjective due
Dispositional attribution or situational attribution may to mediation by reciprocity as they respond favorably to
also affect supervisors judgement of subordinates ethics. employees engaging in OCB (Organ, 1977). Supervisor
Barrick and Mount (1991) suggest that supervisors ratings evaluation may also be influenced by employee behaviors
are biased by conscientious behavior, which they termed a intended to benefit, or impress (Organ and Konofsky, 1989).
social reputation. Podsakoff et al. (1990) further indict With the assurance of anonymity, there is no reason for
supervisory ratings arguing that performance contributions respondents not to be candid as they self-report.
to the organization in the form of OCB cause superiors to Any evaluation may be biased by social perception, but
rate employees higher in other areas. having only a few raters (superiors) interjecting perceptual
Given the individual differences in values, locus of bias into a large number of evaluations may introduce an
control, Machiavellianism, cognitive moral development, error pattern into the data. This bias would likely be greater
8 D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115

and more injurious to the sample than the damage caused by OCB dimensions to productivity was identified via multiple
a large number of raters. The responses of a large number regression. Determination of individual OCB behaviors
(peers, in this case) would be unlikely to produce a bias within the dimensions that contributed the greatest to
pattern which would distort the results. productivity was also made by regression analysis. In all
Self-appraisal of OCB is not universally accepted, but it analyses, results are reported by total sample, and most,
may provide a better assessment of the desired behaviors and least ethical groups.
than supervisory evaluation. The probability of a supervisor
being able to accurately assess a number of subordinates
with respect to vague behaviors, many of which are subject 7. Results
to the supervisors attributions, appears remote. Accurate
assessment of ethical behavior requires a more intimate 7.1. Dimensionality
knowledge of individuals than that afforded by sporadic
observation. The Van Dyne et al. (1994) instrument is well Factor analysis of the total sample correlation matrix
suited for self-report or evaluation of peers, as many state- produced four factors with eigenvalues greater than unity
ments require personal knowledge of the individual rather and each accounting for more than 5% of the variance in the
than occasional behavioral observation. data. Assuming that OCB factors are correlated, oblique
rotation was used, producing an intuitively acceptable
5.4. Halo and horns solution with the four factors. Cumulative variance
explained by the four factors was 46.2%, which compares
The methodology may be criticized as introducing halo favorably with the 36.1% in the Van Dyne et al.(1994) study
and horn effects between OCB and ethical behavior. A halo (Table 1).
effect is an appraisal error occurring when a rater general- The Obedience factor was comprised of items 8 11, 13
izes from one aspect of an individuals performance to all 15, 17, 24, and 34, representing generalized compliance,
others. The horn effect is the reverse of halo and occurs done primarily for the sake of the system, rather than for
when a rater scores an individual low on all dimensions individuals, consistent with Smith et al. (1983). Obedience
because of one dimension perceived as unsatisfactory activities include punctuality, quality production, care of
(French, 1998). These errors or biases are generally consid- organizational resources, following work rules, and judging
ered in the context of performance evaluations, however, the right/wrong for the organization. The Social/Advocacy
perceptual errors may occur in evaluation of behaviors such Participation (S/A Participation) factor included items 19
as OCB. Unlike a typical evaluation in which one supervisor 23 and 25 29, describing such actions as sharing ideas,
evaluates a number of subordinates, in this study, there were creative suggestions, involvement in groups to benefit the
many independent evaluators. Consequently, the probability organization, staying informed, and pushing management to
of respondents sharing the same perceptual bias and intro- keep skills current and perform to higher standards. These
ducing a bias pattern into the results is much lower than if behaviors are primarily other-directed, but clearly beneficial
one or a few evaluators rated the citizenship behavior. to the organization.
Items 1 5 formed the Loyalty dimension and are behav-
iors that actively promote or defend the organization. Func-
6. Analysis tional Participation included items 7, 12, 16, and 30 32,
which describe behaviors such as getting additional training,
The OCB dimensional structure was developed for the working beyond the expected, accepting extra duties, meet-
self-evaluation (total) sample by factor analysis of the ing all deadlines, and urging coworkers to invest in the
correlation matrix of the 34 OCB items. That factor struc- organization. Items 6, 18, and 33 failed to load on any
ture was applied to the more and least ethical group factor, and items 5 and 21 had high crossloadings.
data. Scores were obtained for the total sample, the most Comparison of the present factor structure with that of
ethical, and the least ethical. Dimensional scores were Van Dyne et al. (1994) indicates similar results. In the
determined by calculating the means and standard devia- present study, Obedience contained seven of the 10 items
tions of the factors, using the numbers entered on the OCB in the Van Dyne et al. (1994) study, and Loyalty contained
scale. Scores were obtained for the total sample and the five of the seven items. The S/A Participation factor was
most and least ethical groups. Differences among the identical to Van Dyne et al.s (1994) factors named S/A
scores of these groups were identified by means difference Participation, with the exception of item 24 (an Obedience
tests (one-tailed t tests). item in the present study), and item 18, which did not load
Relationships between the OCB dimensions and produc- on any factor (recall that Van Dyne et al.s, 1994 data
tivity (as measured by the index variable produces a high produced a five-factor solution). Functional Participation
quantity of good quality output) for the full sample and the included three of the five behaviors in Van Dyne et al.s
most and least ethical subsets were determined by (1994) factor. The basic difference between the present
correlation analyses. The incremental contribution of the factor structure and that of Van Dyne et al. (1994) is their
D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115 9

Table 1
OCB factor structure
Factor
I II III IV
1. Represents organization favorably to outsiders .22 .23 .70 .11
2. Does not go out of way to defend organization against outside threats .09 .27 .66 .04
3. Does not tell outsiders this is a good place to work .03 .06 .71 .12
4. Does not defend organization when employees criticize it .09 .04 .76 .21
5. Actively promotes organizations products and services .20 .38 .41 .11
6. Would accept job at competing organizations for more money .04 .33 .24 .07
7. Would not urge coworkers to invest money in organizations .02 .07 .26 .54
8. Rarely wastes time while at work .70 .07 .14 .02
9. Produces as much as capable at all times .78 .02 .02 0.11
10. Always comes to work on time .60 .19 .01 .02
11. Regardless of circumstances, produces highest quality of work .75 .07 .14 .28
12. Does not meet all deadlines set by organization .40 .00 .05 .54
13. Is mentally alert and ready to work when arrives at work .62 .13 .27 .04
14. Follows work rules and instructions with extreme care .63 .05 .30 .06
15. Sometimes wastes organizational resources .60 .20 .03 .09
16. Keeps work areas clean and neat .24 .03 .27 .45
17. Sometimes misses work for no good reason .63 .02 .24 .05
18. Only attends work-related meetings if required by job .28 .35 .08 .35
19. Shares ideas for new projects or improvements widely .15 .64 .07 .25
20. Keeps informed about products and services and tells others .23 .72 .01 .09
21. Works so personal appearance is attractive and appropriate .34 .40 .15 .30
22. Is not involved in outside groups for benefit of organization .07 .51 .27 .01
23. Frequently makes creative suggestions to coworkers .09 .58 .04 .13
24. Uses professional judgement to assess right/wrong .50 .36 .16 .18
25. Encourages management to keep knowledge/skills current .08 .71 .09 .05
26. Encourages others to speak up at meetings .02 .80 .08 .18
27. Helps coworkers think for themselves .24 .56 .24 .01
28. Keeps well-informed where opinion might benefit organization .15 .74 .03 .02
29. Does not push superiors to perform to higher standards .03 .47 .06 .19
30. Does not pursue additional training to improve performance .04 .20 .01 .73
31. Avoids extra duties and responsibilities at work .19 .05 .15 .68
32. Does not work beyond what is expected .44 .00 .27 .56
33. Volunteers for overtime work when needed .21 .00 .18 .23
34. Has difficulty cooperating with others on projects .40 .26 .24 .25
Eigenvalues 7.68 3.51 2.50 2.02
Variance 22.6 10.3 7.30 5.90
Cumulative variance 32.9 40.2 46.2
Items 6, 18, and 33 did not load on any factor notice high crossloadings for items 5 and 21

factors Social Participation and Advocacy Participation between the total group and the most ethical scores
combined into one. These differences are not surprising as (t = 1.38 P < .17).
OCB factors may be organization specific, which had been
argued by Podsakoff et al. (1993).
7.3. Within-groups correlations: OCB and productivity

Relationships between productivity and the OCB dimen-


7.2. Factor scores
sions of the three groups were identified by correlation
analysis. These correlations are shown in Table 3. Each
The mean OCB dimension scores, standard deviations,
dimension of the most ethical group was positively
and skewness are provided in Table 2. Individuals consid-
correlated with productivity, as opposed to only the Obedi-
ered less ethical had significantly lower scores on the
ence dimension in the least ethical group, supporting
Obedience, S/A Participation, and Functional Participation
Hypotheses 2 and 3a.
dimensions, supporting Hypothesis 4.
Item 35, Produces a high quantity of high quality
output, the proxy variable for productivity, was higher 7.4. Contributions of OCB dimensions and specific
for the most than the least ethical group (t = 9.01; behaviors to productivity
P < .0000). These results support Hypothesis 2. The total
groups productivity score was also higher than the least Table 4 provides the regression results, which elucidated
ethical (t = 9.06; P < .0001). There was no difference the contribution of the OCB dimensions to productivity. The
10 D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115

Table 2
OCB: factor and productivity scores
Most ethical (N = 64) t P< Least ethical (N = 41) t P< Self-report sample (N = 106)
Factor
Obedience
Mean 5.7 11.9 .001 3.4 11.5 .001 5.8
Standard deviation 0.70 1.0 0.75
Skewness 3.0 0.03 0.53

S/A Participation
Mean 5.4 11.0 .001 3.3 9.9 .001 4.9a
Standard deviation 0.92 0.71 0.82
Skewness 1.7 0.01 0.16

Loyalty
Mean 5.7 9.2 .001 3.5 8.6 .001 5.4b
Standard deviation 0.90 1.40 1.0
Skewness 1.2 0.02 0.64

Functional Participation
Mean 5.9 10.8 .001 3.7 11.0 .001 5.7
Standard deviation 0.81 1.1 0.89
Skewness 2.3 0.26 0.62

In-Role Index (Productivity)


Mean 6.1 9.0 .001 3.8 9.1 .001 5.8
Standard deviation 1.0 1.6 1.0
Skewness 2.3 0.97 0.84
a
The S/A Participation factor means of the most ethical and self-evaluation samples are different (t = 3.3; P < .001).
b
The Loyalty factor means of the most ethical and total samples are different (t = 1.6; P < .05).

Obedience and S/A Participation dimensions contributed to ing additional support for Hypotheses 2 and 3a. These two
productivity in the total and most ethical groups, provid- dimensions in the most ethical sample accounted for
more than double the variance of the productivity variable
than those dimensions in the full sample. No dimensions in
Table 3 the least ethical subsample contributed to productivity.
Correlations: high-quality output and OCB dimensions
Hypothesis 3a is further supported by these results, and
1 2 3 4 5 Hypothesis 3b is rejected.
Total sample
1. High-quality output
2. Obedience 0.53*** Table 4
3. S/A Participation 0.35*** 0.38*** Regression results: productivity by organization citizenship dimensions
4. Loyalty 0.10 0.29** 0.47**
OCB dimension b t P<
5. Functional 0.31** 0.43*** 0.26* 0.21*
Participation Total sample
Obedience 0.54 4.47 .001
Most ethical workers S/A Participation 0.27 2.36 .02
1. High-quality output Loyalty 0.14 1.62 .10
2. Obedience 0.78*** Functional Participation 0.08 0.91 .36
3. S/A Participation 0.69*** 0.56*** R2 (adjusted) .30
4. Loyalty 0.55*** 0.54*** 0.63***
5. Functional 0.67*** 0.69*** 0.67*** 0.57*** Most ethical
Participation Obedience 0.78 5.25 .001
S/A Participation 0.38 3.11 .001
Least ethical workers Loyalty 0.02 0.17 .86
1. High-quality output Functional Participation 0.14 1.02 .31
2. Obedience 0.46** R2 (adjusted) .69
3. S/A Participation 0.29 0.16
4. Loyalty 0.11 0.19 0.02 Least ethical
5. Functional 0.33 0.34 0.62*** 0.10 Obedience 0.44 1.65 .11
Participation S/A Participation 0.42 0.93 .36
Loyalty 0.32 1.64 .11
* P < .05.
Functional Participation 0.25 0.82 .41
** P < .01.
R2 (adjusted) .23
*** P < .001.
D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115 11

Table 5
Regression results: productivity by OCB dimension items
Most ethical Least ethical Total
2 2
Dimension (item no.) b P< R b P< R b P< R2
Obedience
8. Rarely wastes time at work 0.15 .00 .56 0.37 .00 .25 0.16 .02 .07
34. Difficulty cooperating 0.28 .04 .10
11. Has highest quality of work 0.36 .00 .05
24. Use judgement to assess right/wrong 0.32 .00 .09 0.28 .00 .15
R2 .70 .35 .22

S/A Participation
28. Keeps well-informed 0.53 .00 .61 0.31 .00 .13
23. Makes creative suggestions 0.27 .00 .05 0.43 .00 .23
R2 .66 .23 .13

Loyalty
1. Represents organization well 0.70 .00 .29
R2 .29

Functional Participation
31. Avoids extra duties at work 0.32 .05 .09
32. Does not work beyond minimum 0.80 .00 .58 0.26 .01 .08
12. Does not meet deadlines 0.12 .04 .05
R2 .58 .09 .13
Recall that negative items were reverse scores.

There were differences in the incremental contributions to the Van Dyne et al. (1994) factor structure supports the
to productivity of the individual citizenship behaviors. Not validity of the present dimensional composition, and the
wasting time at work (Obedience dimension) was the single greater explained variance suggest that respondents were
contributor to productivity for all three groups. The Obedi- more consistent in their ratings than the supervisors in the
ence behaviors contributed the greatest amount to produc- Van Dyne et al. (1994) study. Assuming that the respond-
tivity for each group. Loyalty contributed to productivity in ents were generally truthful, self-report may provide a
only the most ethical group. High quality of work, better measures of OCB than either peer or supervisory
assessing right and wrong, being well-informed, organiza- evaluations, due to the unobservable motive content of
tional advocacy, and going beyond the minimum contrib- extra-role behaviors.
uted to productivity for the most ethical group. These Differences between the total group OCB scores and
results support Hypothesis 4, and are produced in Table 5. those of the most and least ethical subgroups suggest
that the respondents differentiated between themselves and
others who were considered more or less ethical. The
8. Discussion productivity measures also indicate a differentiation
between self and less ethical, with the respondents
The results of this study support Hypothesis 1, with perceiving productivity of the less ethical individuals to
more ethical individuals rated higher on OCB than be low. Interestingly, the most ethical S/A Participation
less ethical; Hypothesis 2, with more ethical workers and Loyalty group scores were significantly greater than the
having greater productivity, with more and stringer links full sample score. The component behaviors in these factors
between OCB and output; Hypothesis 3a, with OCB are quite desirable. If social desirability had biased the
dimensions positively and differentially related to produc- responses of the self-reporting respondents in order to
tivity, and the relationships varying as a function of more appear more favorable, one would expect all of the total
or less ethical behavior; and Hypothesis 4, with individ- sample scores to be very close or greater than the mean of
ual OCB behaviors exhibiting differential contributions to the dimensions of the most ethical.
productivity, and the differences being partial functions of
ethics. Hypothesis 3b was not supported, as the OCB 8.2. Dimensionality
dimensions were not negatively related to productivity.
The factor structure of the data is congruent with the
8.1. Self-report OCB assessment concept of OCB. The Obedience behaviors are those that
focus on dutiful performance of the job and high produc-
The self-report method of obtaining aggregate OCB tivity. These behaviors are consistent with beyond minimal,
scores appears to be appropriate. The dimensional similarity above average job performance, and can be considered
12 D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115

extra-role. The Obedience dimension has the strongest Behaviors beyond the required and extra effort for the
relationship to productivity in the full sample, as well as firm and ones personal productivity supercedes mere par-
the most and least ethical groups. Ethical and uneth- ticipation, and is named Functional Participation. Although
ical individuals can be obedient and conscientious in their correlated with productivity, this dimension was not a
work they may go about the processes differently, but significant contributor to productivity, as measured by the
with equal attention to the job and the level of output. index variable. These behaviors are organizationally desir-
S/A Participation behaviors are clearly extra-role, and to able, but may be slower to manifest than the behaviors in the
a greater degree than those of the Obedience dimension. Obedience and S/A Participation dimensions. Although this
Obedient behavior will result in good quantity and quality dimension was not a contributor to productivity as meas-
of productivity but S/A Participation actions will further ured, it may well contribute to the long-term success of the
both the social and production aspects of the organization, organization. A longitudinal study and a more precise
as they lubricate the social machinery of the organiza- measure of output and organization effectiveness is required
tion (Smith et al., 1983, p. 654). Whereas, Obedience to identify the long-term impact of these behaviors.
behaviors can maintain high individual productivity, S/A
Participation behaviors can advance the firm beyond its 8.3. Contribution of intradimension behaviors
present state of product (service) and processes. These
citizenship behaviors may also be a catalyst of innovation Obedience behaviors contributed the greatest to produc-
as they work through the social structure of the organiza- tivity, and within that dimension, wise use of time was the
tion, altering the behavior of others, both overtly and most important for each group. Wise time utilization and
covertly, in a beneficial direction conducive to the sponta- creativity were the only behaviors common to both the
neous acts of creativity. Perhaps the positive, other-directed more and less ethical groups. Supporting Hypothesis
social aspect of the S/A Participation dimension is sub- 4, there were differential contributions of the behaviors to
stantially responsible for the perceived difference between productivity: high quality of work regardless of circum-
more and less ethical peers. stances, and using personal judgement to assess right and
Helping others think for themselves, making creative wrong were unique to the most ethical group. The
suggestions to coworkers, pushing superiors to higher stand- absence of assessing right and wrong as a contributing
ards, and sharing ideas for new projects or improvements behavior in the least ethical and total sample supports
are behaviors that may have a multiplier effect through the validity of this study, as well as indicating that differ-
social structures. S/A Participation behaviors may not show entiating right and wrong is considered ethical behavior in
immediate gains in productivity, as these seeds of ideas, the workplace.
and behavioral modifications may manifest over a relatively Creativity (S/A Participation dimension) is an extra-role
long period. Behaviors in this dimension may, in the long behavior, and a productive trait of both more and less
term, be the most organizationally beneficial. Although the ethical workers, suggesting that truly creative individuals
relationship between S/A Participation behavior and pro- are spontaneous with their talent, consistent with Turnipseed
ductivity was the second strongest correlate and these (1994), and do not use it consciously as an organizational
behaviors contributed the second most to productivity, the gift. Spontaneous creativity is contrasted with the purpose-
productivity measure used was one of current and past ful act of keeping oneself informed where opinion may
performances; future potential was not assessed. benefit the organization. Keeping current and using that
Loyalty behaviors are clearly desirable, but do not offer knowledge to benefit the organization, as well as the
any immediate productivity enhancements. They are behav- Loyalty behavior of good organizational representation,
ioral expressions of organizational satisfaction and alle- require conscious effort, and are not behaviors attributed
giance, consistent with Van Dyne et al. (1994). The to the less ethical, further supporting Hypothesis 4.
contribution of Loyalty appears to be that of genuinely Cooperation predicted productivity only among the
satisfied employees returning something to the organization, least ethical group. Individuals considered less ethical
or as argued by Schanke (1991), expressing a compensatory may be political actors and very cooperative as they engage
mood of satisfaction. Loyalty behavior was related to in political activity to further their individual agendas. The
productivity, as measured by this study, only among the pursuit of personal ends or engaging in political behavior
most ethical employees. The explanation for this may be may be considered unethical, although this behavior tangen-
that the employees considered most ethical are also the tially results in personal productivity, even at the expense of
most productive, and, thus, these ethical behaviors would personal relations and efficient system maintenance.
correlate with productivity for that group. Although Loyalty Not avoiding extra duties at work, as an independent
behaviors may not be connected to current productivity, variable for the least ethical workers, and working
they undoubtedly advance the welfare of the organization. beyond the minimum as a predictor for the most ethical
Specifically, these behaviors may reduce the resources group may appear confusing. However, hourly or union
required for system maintenance, thereby increasing organ- workers taking on extra duties (overtime, etc.) get extra pay:
izational efficiency and profitability. There is self-interest here, as opposed to workers who
D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115 13

routinely go beyond the minimum. Going beyond the ments with different constructs would be used to measure
minimum is a basic tenet of OCB, and the appearance of OCB among the three groups. However, due to the lack
this behavior as an independent variable in the more of comparable instruments, such an approach is not
ethical model suggests a work ethic that is not perceived possible. Another possible limitation may be social desir-
as evenly distributed through the organization. ability bias of the respondents in the self-evaluation
approach, as they attempted to answer in the manner
8.4. Conclusion desired by the researcher. This is a possibility in any
research in the social sciences. Due to the lack of
OCB appears to be a practical phenomenon, which is comparable instruments, the same instrument and the
strongly linked to personal productivity and ethical behav- same construct would have been used if the evaluations
ior. Individuals perceived as more ethical appear to were done by the supervisors. However, the damage could
engage in citizenship activities to a greater extent than those be much worse, as halo, horns, recency, and other biases
perceived as less ethical. In addition, the more ethical could affect large numbers of ratings (potentially all
individuals were rated as higher performers, which has ratings done by a given supervisor).
significant implications for managers. There may be a Another possible limitation is the use of the index
temporal aspect to the practical benefits of OCB, with some variable Produces a high quantity of high quality output
behaviors (organization directed) having immediate effects as a measure of productivity, which was chosen for con-
on productivity, and others (individual directed) requiring a sistency with Organs (1988a) proxy for in-role behavior.
germination period. The various social-based citizenship Other, more refined measures can be developed. In addition,
behaviors may benefit the organization through a reduced the identification of more and less ethical peers and
need for system maintenance, as good relations with peers the description of good organization citizenship are sub-
and managers allow greater operational efficiency. High jective, and partially dependent upon attribution. Any indi-
levels of OCB may serve as a leadership substitute. The vidual may be judged differently by his or her peers. These
results of this study make an argument that the good problems will continue to plague research of this nature, but
soldiers behavior is not a unique organizational phenom- must not be allowed to slow or stop it.
enon, but rather the manifestation of their individual ethics Although this exploratory study found that ethical behav-
in the workplace. ior is related to OCB, the single subject organization may
Ethical behavior, especially when manifesting as extra- operate in a particularly ethical or unethical manner, and/or
role citizenship actions, may be of increasing importance to the respondents may be exceptionally ethical or unethical.
managers as the worlds markets and productive environ- Perhaps unique factors in this sample biased the results.
ments become more integrated. Other studies have shown Additional study is needed with other organizations to more
cultural differences in citizenship behavior (Turnipseed and precisely determine the OCB ethical behavior relationship.
Murkison, 2000), which makes the ethics OCB produc- Further study should address causality of OCB. Good
tivity link of current interest. The corporate environment of citizenship behavior may cause performance, but high per-
the late 1990s, which included downsizing, increased for- formance may also cause OCB, or a yet unidentified variable
eign competition, and new approaches to organizations and may cause both. This study has provided a previously
management has created significant uncertainty. In ambig- ignored variable (ethical behavior) as a causal candidate.
uous situations, individual ethics may drive decisions to a Advances in the study of extra-role behaviors require a
greater degree than in routine circumstances. A major differ- refinement in instrumentation. There is a need for longitu-
ence between an ordinary and an ethical decision is ambi- dinal studies of the relationship between OCB and produc-
guity, or the . . . point where the accepted rules no longer tivity, particularly individual citizenship behaviors. The idea
serve, and the individual must rely upon his/her values and of managing for increased OCB requires a firm under-
make a judgement in a unique situation (Alderson, 1965, standing of exactly what the results are, and what behaviors
p. 320). The ethics of supervisors and managers, ethics are desirable. For a manager to work for increased OCB is
training, and the ethical culture of the organization influence comparable to managing for high efficiency to optimize
ethical behavior (Schermerhorn, 1999). Given the demon- efforts and outcomes, managers must know what component
strated link between ethical behavior and desirable citizen- behaviors are most desirable, and which contribute to
ship behaviors, organizations may view ethics as more than desirable organization ends. Longitudinal research can help
a buzz-work and work to create ethical cultures to improve answer these questions.
organizational performance as well as to do right.

References
9. Limitations and future research
Alderson W. Dynamic marketing behavior. Homewood (IL): Irwin, 1965.
Aupperle K, Carroll AB, Hatfield J. An empirical examination of the rela-
The study may be criticized as possibly contaminated tionship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Acad
by common method variance. Ideally, different instru- Manage J 1985;28:449 59.
14 D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115

Avila R, Fern E, Mann O. Unraveling the criteria for assessing the perform- tional citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee
ance of salespeople: a causal analysis. J Pers Selling Sales Manage citizenship? J Appl Psychol 1991;76:845 55.
1988;8:45 54. Navran F. Your role in shaping ethics. Exec Excellence 1992;9:11 2.
Barnard CI. The functions of the executive Cambridge (MA): Harvard Nelson D, Quick JC. Organization behavior: the essentials. 2nd ed. New
Univ. Press, 1938. York: Southwestern, 1997.
Barrick M, Mount M. The big five personality dimensions and job perform- Organ DW. A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction causes
ance: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol 1991;44:1 26. performance hypothesis. Acad Manage Rev 1977;2:46 54.
Bateman T, Organ DW. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relation- Organ DW. Organization citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome
ship between affect and employee citizenship. Acad Manage J 1983; Lexington (MA): Lexington Books, 1988a.
26:587 96. Organ DW. A restatement of the satisfaction performance hypothesis.
Berkowitz L, Conner C. Success, failure, and social responsibility. J Pers J Manage 1988b;14:547 57.
Soc Psychol 1966;4:664 70. Organ DW. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior.
Bhide A, Stevenson H. Why be honest if honesty doesnt pay. Harv Bus In: Staw BM, Cummings LL, editors. Research in organizational be-
Rev 1990;68:121 30 (September October). havior, vol. 12. Greenwich (CT): JAI Press, 1990. pp. 43 72.
Brief AP, Motowidlo SJ. Prosocial organization behaviors. Acad Manage J Organ DW, Konofsky M. Cognitive versus affective determinists of organ-
1986;11:710 25. izational citizenship behavior. J Appl Psychol 1989;74:157 64.
Brockner J, Guare J. Improving the performance of low-esteem individuals. Organ DW, Lingl A. Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
Acad Manage J 1983;26:642 56. behavior. J Soc Psychol 1995;135:339 50.
DeNisi A, Cafferty TP, Meglino BM. A cognitive view of the performance Pastin M. The hard problems of management: gaining the ethics edge. San
appraisal process: a model and research propositions. Organ Behav Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1986.
Hum Perform 1984;33:360 96. Penn W, Collier B. Current research in moral development as a decision
Donaldson T. Values in tension: ethics away from home. Harv Bus Rev support system. J Bus Ethics 1985;4:131 6.
1996;74:72 89 (September October). Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Moorman R, Fetter R. Transformational
Ferrell OC, Fraedrich J. Business ethics Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1994. leader behaviors and their effects on follows trust in leader, satisfaction,
Ferrell OC, Fraedrich J, Ferrell L. Business ethics New York: Houghton and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Q 1990;1:107 42.
Mifflin, 2000. Podsakoff PM, Niehoff BP, MacKenzie SB, Williams ML. Do substitutes
French W. Human resources management. New York: Houghton Mif- for leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical examina-
flin, 1998. tion of Kerr and Jermiers situational leadership model. Organ Behav
Gilligan C. In a different voice: psychological theory and womens develop- Hum Decis Process 1993;54:1 44.
ment. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1982. Puffer SM. Pro-social behavior, non-compliant behavior, and work perform-
Graham JW. Principled organizational dissent: a theoretical essay. In: Staw ance among commission sales people. J Appl Psychol 1987;72: 615 21.
LL, Cummings LL, editors. Research in organizational behavior, vol. 8. Randall D. Commitment and the organization: the organization man revis-
Greenwich (CT): JAI Press, 1986. pp. 1 52. ited. Acad Manage Rev 1987;12:460 71.
Graham JW, Verma A. Predictors and moderators of employee re- Robin DP. Questions and answers about business ethics. 4th ed. Cincinnati
sponses to employee participation programs. Hum Relat 1991;44: (OH): Dame, 2000.
551 68. Robbins SP. Organizational behavior. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ):
Hosmer L. Moral leadership in business. New York: Irwin, 1994. Prentice-Hall, 1998.
Inkson J. Self-esteem as a moderator of the relationship between job Rokeach M. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press, 1973.
performance and job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol 1978;63:243 7. Schanke M. Organizational citizenship: a review, proposed model, and
Isen A, Levin P. Effects of feeling good on helping: cookies and kindness. research agenda. Hum Relat 1991;44:735 59.
J Pers Soc Psychol 1972;21:384 8. Schermerhorn JR. Management. 6th ed. New York: Wiley, 1999.
Jackson D, Keith J, Schlacter J. Evaluation of selling performance: a study Scott WG, Mitchell TR, Birnbaum PH. Organization theory: a structural
of current practices. J Pers Selling Sales Manage 1983;3:43 51. and behavioral analysis. Homewood (IL): Irwin, 1981.
Jones D. 48% of workers admit to unethical or illegal acts. USA Today Shaw WH. Business ethics. Belmont (CA): Wadsworth, 1999.
1997;4:1 2 (April). Smith CA, Organ DW, Near JP. Organizational citizenship behavior: its
Katz D. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behav Sci nature and antecedents. J Appl Psychol 1983;68:655 63.
1964;9:131 46. Solomon RC. Morality and the good life. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.
Katz D, Kahn RL. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Staw B, Boettger R. Task revision: a neglected form of work performance.
Wiley, 1966. Acad Manage J 1990;33:534 59.
Katzell R, Yankelovich D. Work, productivity, and job satisfaction. New Staw B, Bell N, Clausen J. The dispositional approach to job attitudes:
York: The Psychological Corporation, 1975. a lifetime longitudinal test. Adm Sci Q 1986;31:56 77.
Lefcourt H. Locus of control: current trends in theory and research. 2nd ed. Trevino LK, Nelson K. Managing business ethics New York: Wiley, 1995.
Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum, 1982. Turnipseed DL. The relationship between the social environment of organ-
Levin P, Isen A. Further studies on the effect of feeling good on helping. izations and the climate for innovation and creativity. Creat Innovation
Sociometry 1975;38:141 7. Manage 1994;3:184 95.
Locke E. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: Dunnette MD, Turnipseed DL, Murkison E. Organizational citizenship behavior: an ex-
editor. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: amination of the influence of the workplace. Leadership Organ Dev J
Rand-McNally, 1976. pp. 1297 351. 1996;17:42 8.
MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM, Fetter R. Organizational citizenship behav- Ullman A. Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relation-
ior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations ships among social performance, social discourse, and economic per-
of salespersons performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991; formance of US Firms. Acad Manage Rev 1985;17:545 57.
50:123 50. Valesquez MG. Business ethics: concepts and cases. Englewood Cliffs
Malinowski C, Smith C. Moral reasoning and moral conduct: an inves- (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1988.
tigation prompted by Kohlbergs theory. J Pers Soc Psychol 1985;49: Vandenberg RJ, Taylor AC. A latent variable approach to rating source
1016 27. equivalence: who should provide ratings on organizational citizenship
Marcus A. Business and society Boston: Irwin, 1993. dimensions? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Moorman RH. Relationship between organizational justice and organiza- Management, Boston, 1997.
D.L. Turnipseed / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 115 15

Van Dyne L, Graham J, Dienesch R. Organizational citizenship behavior: ship and in-role behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana
construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Acad Manage J University, 1988.
1994;37:765 802. Williams L, Anderson S. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
Van Dyne L, Cummings LL, Parks JM. Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J Manage
construct and definitional clarity. Res Organ Behav 1995;17:215 86. 1991;17:601 17.
Vogel D. Ethics and profit dont always go hand in hand. Los Angeles Witt A. Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes organizational
Times, 1988:7 (December 28). citizenship behaviors relationships. J Appl Soc Psychol 1991;21:
Watson D, Clark L. Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience 1490 501.
aversive emotional states. Psychol Bull 1984;96:465 91. Zey-Ferrell M, Weaver M, Ferrell O. Predicting unethical behavior among
Williams L. Affective and nonaffective components of job satisfaction and marketing practitioners. Hum Relat 1979;32:557 70.
organizational commitment as determinants of organizational citizen-

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi