ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR OCB. pdf

ORGANIZATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR
(OCB):
THE CORPORATE MIND
GAME

a. Dr. Puja Khatri, Associate Professor, University School of Management
Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
b. Neha Raheja, Research Scholar, University School of Management
Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
Corresponding Author email-id: neha18raheja@gmail.com

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB): THE
CORPORATE MIND GAME

Abstract
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is one of the most studied & explored positive
organizational behavior construct. It has been more than 25 years since coining of termOrganizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) which describes the voluntary behaviors that
facilitate organizational functioning but are not formally rewarded by the organization. Most
of the studies have focused on benefit both individual and organizational outcomes whereas
few recent studies (Bolino et al., 2005) have tried to explore the possibility that individuals

who engage in OCB may suffer negative consequences. They argued that it can be performed
for self-serving motives instead of altruistic and that it can have detrimental effects. In this
paper, we will try to explore light as well as dark side of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
(OCB).

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB)
Barnard (1938) stated that the willingness of individuals to contribute cooperative efforts to
the organization was indispensable to effective attainment of organizational goals. Barnard
elaborated that efforts must be exerted not only to perform the functions that contribute to the
goals of the organization but also to maintain the organization itself.
Katz (1964) and Katz and Kan (1966, 1978) did more research on behavioral necessities of
performance as one “creative activity” along with the direction of organizational aims,
whereas, the activity is not defined as an official job description. In 1983, Bateman and
Organ named these behaviors as “organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs)”. Organ et al
(1988) described Organizational Citizenship Behavior as ““individual behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in
the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. By discretionary, we
mean that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description,

that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the

organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not
generally understood as punishable”.

Year

1988

1993

1996

1997

2001

2002

Authors

Organ et al

Definitions of OCB
OCB is an individual behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly
recognized by the formal reward system and
that in the aggregate promotes the effective
functioning of the organization. By
discretionary, we mean that the behavior is
not an enforceable requirement of the role or
the job description, that is, the clearly
specifiable terms of the person’s
employment contract with the organization;
the behavior is rather a matter of personal
choice, such that its omission is not
generally understood as punishable

Title

Organizational
Citizenship

Behavior: The
Good Soldier
Syndrome

The impact of
organizational
citizenship
MacKenzie
behavior on
et al
evaluations of
salesperson
performance
Organizational
citizenship
OCB represents a set of desirable
behaviors and
S. M. Walz
organizational behaviors, which demonstrate their effect on
& B. P.

multi-dimensional relationships with
organizational
Niehoff
positive organizational consequences.
effectiveness in
limited menu
restaurants
Organizational
Updated the definition of OCB to
citizenship
"contributions to the maintenance and
Organ
behavior: It’s
enhancement of the social and psychological
construct clean–
context that support task performance"
up time
OCB could be formally defined as a
discretionary work behavior of the employee
SK

that is not recognized by the formal reward
Dimensions of
Chaitanya, or the sanction system of their organization
Organizational
Nachiketa but which is very important for
Citizenship
Tripathi
organizational effectiveness. Such behavior Behavior
is relatively independent of extrinsic
rewards.
Both art and
science:
OCBs are employee behaviors that, although Employing
Lee & Allen not critical to the task or job, serve to
organizational
facilitate organizational functioning
documentation
in workplacebased research.
OCB within a marketing perspective,
"discretionary behaviors on the part of a

salesperson that directly promote the
effective functioning of an organization,
without necessarily influencing a
salesperson’s objective sales productivity."

Publication

Lexington
Books

Journal of
Marketing,
Vol. 57 No.
1, pp. 70-80

Best Paper
Proceedings,
Academy of
Management
conference,

pp. 307-311
(1996)
Human
Performance,
10 (2): 85–97

Indian
Journal of
Industrial
Relations,
Vol. 37, No.
2, Oct 2001
The work and
family
handbook:
Multidisciplinary
perspectives,
methods, and

2004

2005

2006

2006

2006

2007

Nadim
Jahangir,
Mohammad
Muzahid
Akbar,
Mahmudul
Haq

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)

is referred as set of discretionary workplace
behaviors that exceed one’s basic job
requirements. They are often described as
behaviors that go beyond the call
of duty.

In PittCatsouphes, M.,
Kossek, E.E., &
Sweet, S. (Eds.).

approaches.
(pp.503-525).
Mahwah,
New Jersey:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates

Organizational
Citizenship

Behavior- Its
Nature &
Antecedents

BRAC
University
Journal, Col.
I, No. 2, pp.
75-85

The moderating
effects of equity
sensitivity on
OCB is a kind of job behavior which is not
the relationship
Blakely,
considered as job qualifications. OCB serves between
Andrews &
organizations, supporting social and
organizational
Moorman
psychological contexts
justice and
organizational
citizenship
behaviors
Organ,
Organizational
Emphasized the discretionary nature of OCB
D.W.,
Citizenship
by defining it as "discretionary contributions
Podsakoff,
Behavior: Its
that go beyond the strict description and that
Ph.M. and
Nature,
do not lay claim to contractual recompense
MacKenzie,
Antecedents and
from the formal reward system"
S.B.
Consequences
Congruence of
Alev
Family and
Ergenc
OCB, a cluster of behaviours that result in
Organizational
Katrinli,
organizationally desirable outcomes, is
Values in
Gulem
expected to be a consequence of the existing
Relation to
Atabay and organizational and family values that lie at
Organizational
Gonca
the root of these behaviours.
Citizenship
Gunay
Behaviour
Organizational
“Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), citizenship
defined… as behavior that (a) goes beyond
behavior and
S J Lambert the basic requirements of the job, (b) is to a
workplace
large extent discretionary, and (c) is of
deviance: The
benefit to the organization
role of affect
and cognitions
OCB as a special form of extra-role
Materialistic
Omer
behavior in organizational contexts, means
Attitude as an
Torluk,
behaving as a citizen who cares about the
Antecedent of
Umut Koc
well-being of both his country and other
Organizational

Journal of
Business and
Psychology,
Vol.20, pp.
259-273

Thousand
Oaks, CA:
Sage
Publications

Journal of
Human
Values

Journal of
Applied
Psychology,
87(1), 131142
Management
Research
News, Vol.
30 No. 8, pp.

citizens.

2009

2011

2012

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
(OCBs) are a special type of work behavior
that are defined as individual behaviors that
are beneficial to the organization and are
discretionary, not directly or explicitly
Kuldeep
recognized by the formal reward system.
Kumar, Arti These behaviors are rather a matter of
Bakhshi,
personal choice, such that their omission is
Ekta Rani not generally understood as punishable.
OCBs are thought to have an important
impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of
work teams and organizations, therefore
contributing to the overall productivity of
the organization.
Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB)
is a term that encompasses anything positive
Deww
and constructive that employees do, of their
Zhang
own volition, which supports co-workers
and benefits the company.

Derya
Ergun
Özler,
Ceren
Giderler
Atalay

Citizenship
Behavior

581-596

Linking the ‘Big
Five’
Personality
Domains to
Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior

International
Journal of
Psychologica
l Studies

Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior

White Paper

A Research to
Determine the
Organizational citizenship behavior has been Relationship
defined as optional (voluntary) individual
between
behaviors providing effective and efficient
Organizational
execution organizational functions as a
Cynicism and
whole without taking into consideration
Organizational
formal reward system openly and directly.
Citizenship
Behavior in
Health Sector

European
Journal of
Social
Sciences,
ISSN 14502267 Vol. 34
No 3
October,
2012, pp.416429

Table 1: OCB defined over period of time

Theory behind Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
OCB has its roots in Social Exchange Theory (SET). Social exchange theory was introduced
in 1960s by George Homans. Homans focussed his approach on dyadic relationship and on
reinforcement principles where in individual tends to repeat acts which are being rewarded.
Peter Blau (1964) focussed on the economic and utilitarian perspective. Blau was among the
first who differentiated between social and economic exchange. Similar to economic
exchange, social exchange also generates certain in returns in near future, though these
returns are unspecified and uncalculated. Organizational citizenship behavior of employees is
return to the favourable acts or environment provided by supervisor or the organization.

Employers utilizing the social exchange approach seek a long-term relationship with
employees and show concern about employees’ well-being and career development, and
expect the concern and commitment to be reciprocated. “Social exchange theory explains
how we feel about a relationship with another person based on our perceptions of: 1) the
balance between what we put into the relationship and what we get from it; 2) the kind of
relationship we deserve; and 3) the chances of having a better relationship with someone
else”, Ma & Qu (2011).

DARK SIDE OF OCB
According to a study conducted in outcome- based organization, being a good citizen came
with a cost. Employees showing OCB had slower salary increase and slower advancement
speed as compared to employees who focussed on task performance (Bergeron, Shipp, Rosen
and Furst; 2012). Performance of acts of OCB comes with personal as well as professional
costs. Continued performance of voluntary behavior by individuals may lead to expectations
from supervisors to perform these acts as in-role behavior. This may lead to stress, workoverload, etc. (Bolino, Klotz, Turnley, Harvey; 2012). Individual can have self-serving
motives while performing acts of OCB and this can prove to negative consequences for the
organization (Bolino, Klotz, Turnley, Harvey; 2012). Bolino and Turnley (2005) recently
found evidence that OCB is, in fact, associated with negative consequences for employees,
including role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict (WFC). Moreover, gender was
found to moderate the relationship between citizenship behavior and WFC, with females
exhibiting a stronger relationship between the two variables.

According to Eran Vigota- Gadot (2006), the motivations behind citizenship behavior can be
the abusive and exploitative behavior of immediate supervisors and the pressure by
management or peers to become involved in activities in which the employee would
otherwise not involve himself (i.e., Tepper, 2000). It emerges in response to external
pressures by significant and powerful others in the workplace (i.e., managers or co-workers)
who wish to increase the employees’ work load by involving them in duties that are beyond
the scope of their job description (Porpara, 1989).
Moreover, engaging in citizenship behavior may diminish employees' in-role task
performance, which may consequently damage their career. OCBs are especially likely to
have harmful career consequences when they are performed in organizations that reward
outcomes more than behaviors and when employees engage in OCBs that are challenging and
time-consuming. OCBs were positively related to job satisfaction among employees who
were high in optimism; however, among employees who were less optimistic, the relationship
between OCB and job satisfaction was curvilinear, such that OCBs were positively related to
job satisfaction up to a point, and then additional OCBs were associated with decreased levels
of job satisfaction. Taken together, this line of work indicates that there can be negative
personal and professional outcomes for employees who go the extra mile for their
organizations.
In some cases, individuals who are high self-monitors or who have a careerist orientation to
work will selectively engage in highly visible OCBs in order to facilitate their own
professional success. When performance appraisals are imminent, when OCBs are especially
visible to powerful others, and when one's image has recently been damaged are times that
engaging in OCB may have a particularly positive effect on the reputation of an employee. In
these types of circumstances, image-conscious employees are likely to perform OCBs not to
benefit their organization or its members but to improve their standing in the workplace.

Beyond self-enhancing motives, when employees engage in counterproductive work behavior
directed at the organization, they may subsequently feel guilty for their transgression, which
can lead them to perform OCBs in order to try to make up for their previous misbehavior. In
contrast, employees often feel angry and resentful when they feel compelled to take on extra
duties or work extended hours because of organizational constraints (e.g., inadequate
resources), poor planning, or communication, or to make up for the poor performance of their
coworkers. These feelings of anger may then elicit counterproductive behavior.

In group or organizational level, OCBs often lead to lower performance in work contexts in
which group tasks require little or no coordination among members. The performance of
OCBs in groups with low task interdependence may detract from task performance and may
demotivate the team member who is the target of OCB if he or she interprets it as negative
feedback.
Organizational citizenship behavior includes socially initiated activities (coercive/nonvoluntary) that try to promote constructive ideas and interests by forcing or compelling others
to invest time and effort beyond their duties. This second end is a negative deviation from the
original notion of the good will of individuals and may also result in harmful collective and
organizational outcomes (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006).
LIGHT SIDE OF OCB
OCB can have two motives behind performance of such acts. One can be motivated by selfinterest or the other can be based on altruistic motives (Spector; 2012). Additionally,
although Organ’s (1988) original definition of OCB stipulated that such behaviors are not
directly rewarded, Podsakoff et al. (1993) provide numerous reasons why managers may take
them into account, including norms of reciprocity and fairness, the accessibility of OCB in
memory, implicit assumptions about what makes a good employee, and attributional
processes. Moreover, empirical research has supported that managerial performance ratings
are, in fact, influenced by citizenship behaviors (Allen & Rush, 1998; Conway, 1999;
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; Van Scotter, Motowidlo, & Cross, 2000; Werner,
1994). Podsakoff et al. (2000) concluded that OCB is at least as influential as is in-role
performance in predicting managerial ratings/personnel decisions, even after controlling for
common method variance.
Consistent with Katz and Kahn’s (1966) notion that such behaviors are crucial for effective
organizational functioning, researchers assume that OCB leads to positive organizational
outcomes. In terms of individual-level outcomes, OCB has been associated with career
advancement and rewards over time (Van Scotter et al., 2000), and it is generally assumed
that employees are attracted to organizations that encourage citizenship behavior (Bolino et
al., 2004).

At Individual-level:
Light-side of OCB

Dark-side of OCB

Employees who engage in OCB tend to These behaviors can blur the evaluation
receive better performance ratings by their process,
managers (Podsakoff et al., 2009)

ratcheting

the

performance

requirements upwards so that management
comes to expect such OCB from all
employees (Niehoff; 2000)

A better performance rating is linked to As the focus of management shifts away
gaining rewards (Podsakoff et al., 2009) – from job performance toward OCB, the
such as pay increments, bonuses, promotions appraisal process becomes biased by these
or work-related benefits
During

an

economic

contextual behaviors (Niehoff; 2000)
recession,

these Extra-role behavior is not always a matter of

employees will have a lower chance of being free choice by the individual but rather is
made redundant (Organ et al, 2006)

imposed on him/ her by abusive or
exploitative management (Zellars et al.,
2002)

OCB is linked to lower rates of employee Affiliation-oriented citizen may perform
turnover and absenteeism

OCB to such a degree that the employeeemployer relationship becomes dysfunctional
(Niehoff; 2000)

At Organizational-level:
Light-side of OCB
Increased

productivity,

efficiency

Dark-side of OCB
and Pressure to strive may include exerting strong

customer satisfaction, as well as reduced pressure

on

individuals

to

engage

in

costs, have also been observed (Podsakoff et unrecompensed extra-role work activities
al, 2009)

beyond their formal job definitions and
creating a social atmosphere in which
working extra hours beyond the formal work

day with no formal compensation becomes
the accepted norm (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006)
Free up resources (autonomous, cooperative OCBs often lead to lower performance in
employees give managers more time to clear work contexts in which group tasks require
their work; helpful behaviour facilitates little or no coordination among members
cohesiveness (as part of group maintenance
behaviour) (Organ et al., 2006)
Attract and retain good employees (through Higher levels of job stress and burnout, more
creating

and

maintaining

a

friendly, intentions to leave the organization, and an

supportive working environment and a sense increased tendency to negligent behavior
of belonging) (Organ et al., 2006)

(Vigoda-Gadot, 2006)

Create social capital (better communication Stronger

perceptions

of

organizational

and stronger networks facilitate accurate politics, lower levels of job satisfaction,
information transfer and improve efficiency) innovation,
(Organ et al., 2006)

OCB

climate,

and

in-role

performance (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006)

CONCLUSION
The vast majority of the research describes citizenship behavior as a positive phenomenon,
largely ignoring the possibility that it could result from self-serving motives or lead to
negative consequences. For example, although researchers have examined a wide variety of
antecedents, including job satisfaction, positive affectivity, organizational support, and
transformational leadership (see Podsakoff et al., 2000 for a review), their focus has generally
been limited to variables that carry a positive connotation, stemming from the assumption
that OCB is guided by a desire to help others (Bolino et al., 2004). Alternatively, researchers
have suggested that employees may engage in citizenship behaviors in order to manage
impressions, gain rewards, or make others look bad (Bolino et al., 2004; Eastman, 1994;
Rioux & Penner, 2001). In this paper, we have tried to review both the light as well as darkside of organizational citizenship behavior. This has several important implications.
Specifically, OCB should not be treated as a wholly positive phenomenon. If employees
experience negative outcomes as a result of engaging in OCB, then organizations that
encourage such behaviors may face adverse consequences in the long run. It does suggest that

organizations should pay attention to the type of OCB that is encouraged; some behaviors
may have positive implications, while others may be associated with negative outcomes.
References:
1. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior:
The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and
workfamily conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740-748.
2. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).
Organizational stress. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
3. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology or organizations. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
4. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons
5. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier
syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
6. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational
citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of
Marketing, 57(1), 70-80.

7. Walz, S. M. & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their
effect on organizational effectiveness in limited menu restaurants. Best Paper
Proceedings, Academy of Management conference, pp. 307-311
8. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up
time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97
9. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1),
131-142
10. Chaitanya, S. K. & Tripathi, Nachiketa (2001). Dimensions of Organizational
Citizenship Behavior. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 37, No. 2
11. Jahangir,

Nadim,

Akbar,

Mohammad

Muzahid,

Haq,

Mahmudul

(2004).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior- Its Nature & Antecedents. BRAC University
Journal, vol. I, no. 2, pp. 75-85

12. Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of
equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259273.
13. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage.

14. Katrinli, A. E., Atabay, G., & Gunay, G. (2006). Congruence of family and
organizational values in relation to organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of
Human Values, 12(1), 81-89.

15. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131.
16. Torlak, O., & Koc, U. (2007). Materialistic attitude as an antecedent of organizational
citizenship behavior. Management Research News, 30(8), 581-596.
17. Kumar, K., Bakhshi, A., & Rani, E. (2009). Linking the big five personality domains
to organizational citizenship behavior. International journal of Psychological studies,
1(2), P73.

18. Deww Zhang (2011). Organizational Citizenship Behavior. White Paper
19. Özler, D. E., & Atalay, C. G. (2011). A research to determine the relationship
between organizational cynicism and burnout levels of employees in health sector.
Business and Management Review, 1(4), 26-38.

20. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
21. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.
22. Ma, E., & Qu, H. (2011). Social exchanges as motivators of hotel employees’
organizational citizenship behavior: The proposition and application of a new threedimensional framework. International journal of hospitality management, 30(3), 680688.
23. Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (2011). Organizational
Citizenship Behavior and Career Outcomes The Cost of Being a Good Citizen.
Journal of Management, 0149206311407508.

24. Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark
side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior ,
34(4), 542-559.

25. VIGODA‐GADOT, E. R. A. N. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing
some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the Theory
of Social Behaviour , 36(1), 77-93.

26. Spitzmuller, M., & Van Dyne, L. (2013). Proactive and reactive helping: Contrasting
the positive consequences of different forms of helping. Journal of Organizational
Behavior , 34(4), 560-580.

27. Spector, P. E. (2013). Introduction: The dark and light sides of organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34(4), 540-541.
28. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior:
The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and
workfamily conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740-748.
29. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of management
journal, 43(2), 178-190.

30. Porpora, D. V. (1989). Four Concepts of Social Structure DOUGLAS V. PORPORA.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour , 19(2), 195-211.

31. Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior
on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247-260.

32. Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance
for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 3-13.
33. Van Scotter, J. R., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task
performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(4), 526-535.

34. Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of
inrole and extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79(1), 98-107.

35. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000).
Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and
empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management,
26(3), 513-563.

36. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009).
Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship
behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122.
37. Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their
relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 24(3), 301-319.

38. Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and
subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(6), 1068.

39. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story:
Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior.
Human Resource Management Review, 14, 229-246.

40. Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to
ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 1379-1391.

41. Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship
behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306-1314.