IF ONE SHEEP LEAPS OVER THE DITCH, ALL THE REST WILL
FOLLOW: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO-WORKER OCB AND
OCB OF FELLOW EMPLOYEES
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 2015
2 If One Sheep Leaps Over The Ditch, All The Rest Will Follow: The Relationship
Between Co-Worker OCB and OCB of Fellow Employees.
ABSTRACT
3 INTRODUCTION
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been a widely studied topic since its conception (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000 for a review), and can be considered as a desirable behavior in organizations (Şeşen, Soran, & Caymaz, 2014). Through these studies we know quite a bit about when and why employees engage in OCBs. We know however less about how fellow employees respond to such behaviors of co-workers. Some studies have shown that perceiving a co-worker engaging in OCB can lead to positive reactions and attitudes regarding their job and organization, and that it can lead to OCB from fellow employees as well (Meyer & Allen, 1977; Tepper, Hoobler, Duffy & Ensley, 2004; Bommer, Miles & Grover, 2003), whereas other studies have found that if OCB is not perceived as a real act of goodwill it will not be appreciated by others, especially when it could damage themselves (Bergeron, 2007; Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor & Judge, 1995; Grant, 2008). Therefore more research is needed to clarify these effects, and to find out what drives employees to perform OCB themselves when experiencing co-worker OCB (Tepper et al., 2004; Chen, Takeuchi & Shum, 2013), since OCB can be beneficial for organizational performance and effectiveness (Bowler, Halbesleben, & Paul, 2010), and organizations will not succeed if they only rely on the behaviors of employees as stated in their job descriptions Katz, 1964).
4 employees have of their co-worker’s intentionality. Specifically, I suggest that co-worker OCB indirectly affect one’s own OCB, through an enhanced co-worker reputation, and that this relationship is conditional on a fellow employee’s level of Machiavellianism, which will be mediated by co-worker intentionality. My proposed model is shown in Figure 1.
With this research, I aim to provide new insights into the concept of co-workers’ OCB and their influence on fellow employees. By doing so, I aim to contribute to the knowledge of managers and organizations about their employees OCB, since OCB is a desirable behavior in the organization (Şeşen, et al., 2014), and organizations will not succeed if they only rely on the behaviors of employees as stated in their job descriptions (Katz, 1964). Furthermore, OCB has positive consequences for organizational effectiveness and performance. Knowing what causes fellow employees to engage in OCB, can drive managers’ attention to it, which will make them able to use this information and to encourage OCB in their organization. Thereby a positive culture can be created, which might increase organizational effectiveness.
In the sections that follow, I will first review the literature and argue that co-worker OCB might lead to own OCB, which results in the development of hypotheses. Thereafter I will describe the method I used to test these hypotheses and report the results from my field research. I will end with a discussion and areas for future research.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
5 description), not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988: 4). It is a personal choice to go beyond your job descriptions, and therefore omission of OCB is generally not punishable (Organ, 1988), regardless of the intentions for these behaviors. Examples of OCBs include offering to help co-workers, volunteering for additional tasks, staying longer hours at work, cooperating with others, spreading goodwill, and voluntarily doing more than the job requires (Bergeron, 2007; Katz, 1964; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006).
Prior research has shown that OCB has positive consequences for organizational outcomes and performance, such as increasing the performance of co-workers, increasing sales, increasing performance quality and performance quantity, and facilitating coordination between team members (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Aheame, 1998; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). OCB has been presumed to be desirable behavior of employees on the work floor (Şeşen et al., 2014), and stems from two motivational factors: job attitudes and personality. Organ (1988) found that employees who have more favorable attitudes, engage in OCB more frequently than employees who have more negative attitudes. Furthermore, Bolino (1999) argued that reciprocity, a specific attitude, is based on the social exchange theory and assumes that employees engage in OCB to reciprocate actions of their organization. Personality on the other hand assumes that employees’ dispositions like being cooperative and helpful are reflected in one’s OCBs (Bolino, 1999). Moreover, a couple of important predictors of OCB are for example, extraversion, perceived fairness and commitment (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). The similarities across these studies on OCB is that it generally comes from a desire to help other employees or the organization because of one’s character, or due to a feeling of obligation (Bolino, 1999). A lacking point in these studies on antecedents of OCB is that they only focus on the co-worker engaging in OCB while not investigating their influence on fellow employees’ OCB.
Co-Worker OCB and Own OCB
6 (Tepper et al., 2004), can be witnessed by other employees and influence their attitudes. This is in line with the social learning theory, which states that individuals’ attitudes and behaviors are strongly influenced by what other people do. Employees learn how to behave by observing and imitating others’ behaviors (Bandura, 1977), since these behaviors give information about the social norms and the normative way to behave in a given context (Burkhardt, 1994; Chen et al., 2013; Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Research shows that people take over the actions and views of others with whom they associate (Burkhardt, 1994; Sprague, 1982). Therefore, OCBs of co-workers could create an environment where other employees are encouraged to imitate these behaviors.
As stated before, co-worker OCBs can show the appropriate way to behave and can have a positive effect on the attitudes of fellow employees (Tepper et al., 2004). Organ (1988) found that employees with positive attitudes engage in OCB more frequently. Therefore, when fellow employees see the appropriate way to behave from their co-workers who engage in OCB, it might create a positive attitude that makes it more likely to positively influence their own behavior and OCB. This is in line with Bommer et al. (2003), who found that co-workers can influence an employee to engage in OCB through social learning and social information-processing. Bandura (2001) explained this by the process of mental rehearsal, and showed that employees put themselves in the shoes of their co-worker to understand their behavior, thereby increasing their tendency to engage in OCB as well (Chen et al., 2013). The same results were found by Kamdar and Van Dyne (2007) and by Chen et al. (2013), who found that when co-workers showcase OCB this might motivate the employee to also engage in these behaviors in the workplace. I expect therefore a positive relationship between co-worker OCB and one’s own OCB.
Hypothesis 1:Co-Worker OCB is positively related to Own OCB
The Mediating Role of Co-Worker Reputation
7 see that co-worker OCB creates a good reputation are in that case more likely to imitate these appropriate behaviors.
Reputations can be defined as an attribute ascribed to a person by others (Raub & Weesie, 1990). A positive reputation is the extent to which employees are over time perceived by others, as being helpful to their co-workers and as performing their job with competence (Zinko, Ferris, Humphrey, Meyer, & Aime, 2012). The basis of a persons’ reputation is his past behaviors as observed by others and it provides clues about what type of person he or she is (Anderson & Shirako, 2008; Johnson, Erez, Kiker, & Motowidlo, 2002; Raub & Weesie, 1990). Zinko, Ferris, Blass and Laird (2007) argued that individuals will be perceived as helpful and competent, and thus have a positive reputation, to the extent that individuals possess human capital (i.e. general mental ability), and social control and competency characteristics (i.e. self-efficacy) to make others aware of these competencies.
Ferris, Judge, Roland and Fitzgibbons (1994) argue that employees performing OCB are likely to be viewed as more committed and better performers, and are thus enhancing their reputation. In line with this research, Gunnthorsdottir, McCabe and Smith (2002) found that someone can enhance their reputation when undertaking positive actions with respect to another. Organ (1988) also acknowledges that engaging in OCB on a frequent basis might influence the impression an individual makes on a co-worker. Furthermore, Novak and Sigmund (2005) stated that helping others increases a co-worker’s reputation for trustworthiness and altruism. And Bolino (1999) argued that image enhancement is a likely result from OCBs. He noted that people who engage in citizenship behaviors are likely to be favorably perceived by their co-workers. McAdams and St. Aubin (1992) found as well that individuals helped others and thereby strengthened their own reputation.
Since reputations are formed through consistently demonstrating salient and distinctive behaviors over time (Zinko et al., 2012), and OCBs are salient and distinctive behaviors, I expect that the reputation of a co-worker might be enhanced when he engages in OCB. Co-workers become known by their behaviors and based upon these actions they develop a reputation (Emler, 1984). Therefore, I expect that co-worker OCB is positively related to the reputation of that co-worker.
Hypothesis 2: Co-Worker OCB is positively related to Co-Worker Reputation.
8 more power and better career advancement. In addition, Zinko et al. (2012) argued that reputation may lead to higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions, whereas Ferris, Munyon, Basik, and Buckley (2008) argued that reputation leads to increased job performance. Therefore, a good reputation can have multiple positive outcomes.
Another outcome of co-worker reputation is its effect on fellow employees. Anderson and Shirako (2008) argued that positive reputations can bring acceptance and status. Fellow employees might notice that co-workers who have a good reputation, enjoy more acceptance and have a higher status. Therefore they presumably observe their co-workers to identify how their co-workers received a good reputation. These cues from co-workers may elicit responses from these fellow employees (Kim, 2009), if they want a good reputation for themselves as well. Therefore it might result in employees performing OCB themselves. A positive reputation can therefore incentivize people to behave more cooperatively and show prosocial behaviors (Anderson & Shirako, 2008).
Therefore, if employees see that co-worker reputation leads to higher status and acceptance, and they want to obtain this for themselves as well, it will make it more likely that they behave more cooperatively and prosocially themselves. Hence, I expect that co-worker reputation is positively related to one’s own OCB.
Hypothesis 3: Co-Worker Reputation is positively related to Own OCB.
As argued above, when a co-worker engages in OCB, the result is likely to be an enhancement of that co-worker’s reputation (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, co-worker reputation results in higher status and acceptance, which might incentivize fellow employees to behave more cooperatively and show prosocial behaviors (Anderson & Shirako, 2008) (Hypothesis 2). To identity the factors leading to a good reputation, fellow employees presumably observe their co-workers. Since OCB leads to a good reputation, it is likely that co-worker OCB is also indirectly related to own OCB, through co-worker reputation.
9 favorable reputations are seen by others as having greater legitimacy, trustworthiness, competency and status. Furthermore, employees who want a good reputation, and thereby greater legitimacy and status, for themselves as well, are likely to observe their co-workers and find that OCB presumably increases reputation. This will make it more likely for employees to imitate their co-workers’ behaviors to obtain a good reputation for themselves as well. Therefore, when employees see that OCB leads to a good reputation, and they wish to have a good reputation as well, they are more likely to engage in subsequent OCB. Therefore, I expect that co-worker OCB is indirectly related to own OCB, through reputation.
Hypothesis 4: The indirect relationship between Co-Worker OCB and Own OCB is mediated by Co-Worker Reputation.
The Moderating Role of Co-Worker Intentionality
When a co-worker engages in OCBs the result is likely to be an increase in the reputation of that co-worker. However it is not always clear for employees why the co-worker engages in OCBs. In general, co-workers use both altruistic and egoistic motives to help others (Cheung, Peng, & Wong, 2014). Co-workers with altruistic motives engage in OCB due to a desire to increase the well-being of others, on the other hand, co-workers with egoistic motives engage in OCB to satisfy their own needs (Cheung et al. 2014).
10 al., 1995). In other words, people make sense of another person’s behavior through their perceptions of the other person’s intentions (Thomas & Pondy, 1977).
As stated by Bolino (1999), the understanding of the motives of coworkers is crucial and may influence the effect that OCBs have on other employees’ images at work, and on the way they interpret and react to these behaviors. Employees make a distinctions between low and high intentionality. They attribute low intentionality when the behaviors are perceived as genuine and sincere, and they attribute high intentionality when the behaviors are perceived as self-serving. In line with this reasoning, Ferris et al. (1995) noted that employees see the behavior of a co-worker as prosocial when they make a positive attribution of sincerity to their intent, however this same behavior is labeled politics when they attribute manipulation and self-interest to their co-worker’s intent. Furthermore, Tepper et al. (2004) stated that OCB of co-workers should be associated with positive attitudes when the motives are perceived as genuine and well-intentioned and their OCB should be related to unfavorable attitudes when the motives are perceived as benefitting one self.
Intentionality influences the way employees assess OCB of co-workers, therefore it is likely that it will influence the effect that a co-worker’s OCB has on his reputation. Cheung et al. (2014) showed that helping other employees based on egoistic intentions is not appreciated by both the recipients of the help and by other employees. This high intentionality will likely result in reputational damage. In line with this, Jones (1964) suggested that employees who are targets of flattery are likely to accept that behavior and make a positive attribution to that intent, while peers perceive such behaviors to be inauthentic or ‘kissing up’. He also showed that impression management tactics, used to create a positive image, are only successful when observers perceive it as genuine and authentic. Barclay (2004) found that strategies of less reputable individuals are frequently viewed as egocentric. Furthermore Thorsteinson (1998), found that it is likely that employees dislike co-workers when they attribute co-workers’ OCBs to impression management instead of to altruistic motives. Finally, Tepper et al. (2004) noted that employees should regard the co-workers who are coming in early and staying late, with contempt when their motivation is self-interest.
11 reputation, since behaviors of reputable others are often seen as based on altruistic motives (Johnson et al., 2002). Therefore I expect that the positive relationship between co-worker OCB and his reputation will be weaker when co-worker intentionality is high (i.e. self-serving) rather than low (i.e. other-self-serving).
Hypothesis 5: The positive relationship between Co-Worker OCB and Co-Worker Reputation will be weaker when Co-Worker Intentionality is high rather than low.
Earlier I argued that worker OCB leads to own OCB, since it is likely that co-worker OCB will increase co-co-worker’s reputation. Since reputations are formed through consistently demonstrating salient and distinctive behaviors over time (Zinko et al., 2012), an employee who wants a good reputation as well, is likely to imitate these behaviors and engages in subsequent OCB. However, as argued thereafter, intentionality can adjust the effects that co-worker OCB has on co-worker reputation. OCB of co-workers should be associated with positive attitudes when the motives are perceived as genuine and well-intentioned and their OCB should be related to unfavorable attitudes when the motives are perceived as benefitting oneself (Tepper et al., 2004). Furthermore it is likely that employees dislike workers when they attribute high intentionality instead of altruistic motives to co-workers OCB (Thorsteinson, 1998). Therefore, I assume that high intentionality would not lead to an increased reputation and it is therefore less likely that it will lead to OCB from fellow employees. Specifically I expect that high intentionality will weaken the indirect relationship between co-worker OCB and own OCB, through co-worker reputation.
Hypothesis 6: The indirect relationship between Co-Worker OCB and Own OCB, as mediated by Co-Worker Reputation, will be weaker when Co-Worker Intentionality is high rather than low.
The Influence of Machiavellianism
12 (Christie & Geis, 1970; McHoskey, 1995). McHoskey, Worzel and Szyarto (1998) describe a Machiavellian as domineering, aloof, cynical and practical.
Machiavellianism consists of several aspects and dimensions. Rauthmann and Will (2011) described four different aspects of Machiavellianism. They identified affects (i.e. low emotionality and affection), behaviors (i.e. manipulative, tactical, self-beneficial), cognition (i.e. negative way of perceiving and thinking), and desires/motivation (i.e. self-centered motives). These four broader categories have several dimensions. For the purpose of this paper, I will focus on the cognition aspect, since this aspect is most relevant to attribution of intentionality. Rauthmann and Will (2011) described four dimensions of Machiavellian cognitions that included a negative world-view (e.g. general negative view, cynical attitudes and a pragmatic realistic view of the world), a negative person view (e.g. general negative view of people, see other people as manipulable, being suspicious of others), having a cold calculation of strategies, and egocentricity. This is in line with Christie and Geis (1970), who found that Machiavellian cognitions show negativity towards the world, people and organizations, and with Hunter, Gerbing and Boster (1982), who stated that Machiavellians show cynicism, which includes the beliefs that other individuals are self-serving, malevolent and untrustworthy.
As earlier described, people make sense of another person’s behavior through their perceptions of the other person’s intentions (Thomas & Pondy, 1977). Intentionality therefore influences the way employees perceive OCB of their co-workers. The consequences with high intentionality are that behaviors are rather seen as self-serving instead of genuine acts out of the hart. I suggest that Machiavellianism could also influence the attribution of co-worker intentionality. Christie and Geis (1970) argue for example that high Machs show more strategic planning, and that they are more suspicious of others. They also found that people high on Machiavellianism are more rational and typically have an unflattering opinion about other people, as well as a more cynical view of other individuals. Davies and Stone (2003) noted that high Machs regularly expect the worst of other people. Moreover, Williams, Nathanson and Paulhus (2010) found that high Machs are more cautious and deliberate in how they react and respond. And Harell (1980) found that high Machs are more likely to suspect other individuals of dishonesty.
13 intentionality to the OCB of coworkers. In other words, I suggest that high Machs are more cynical and therefore more inclined to think that coworkers engage in OCB due to self-interested and egoistic motives. Therefore, I expect that employees who are high on Machiavellianism, are more likely to attribute intentionality to the OCBs of co-workers than employees who are low on Machiavellianism.
Hypothesis 7: Machiavellianism is positively related to Co-Worker Intentionality.
Earlier I hypothesized that the indirect relationship between co-worker OCB and own OCB will be mediated by co-worker reputation (Hypothesis 4), and intentionality moderates the relationship between co-worker OCB and co-worker reputation (Hypothesis 5). Furthermore I proposed that the that the indirect relationship between co-worker OCB and own OCB, through co-worker reputation will be weaker when co-worker intentionality is high rather than low (Hypothesis 6). Thereafter, I hypothesized that Machiavellianism is positively related to co-worker intentionality (Hypothesis 7). Based on these hypotheses it is logical to assume that the indirect relationship between worker OCB and own OCB, through co-worker reputation, is conditional on Machiavellianism, which will be mediated by co-co-worker intentionality. Therefore, I expect that the indirect relationship between co-worker OCB and own OCB, mediated by co-worker reputation, will be weaker when Machiavellianism is high rather than low, which will be mediated by co-worker intentionality (mediated-moderation-mediation).
Hypothesis 8: The indirect relationship between Co-Worker OCB and Own OCB, as mediated by Co-Worker Reputation, will be weaker when Machiavellianism is high rather than low, which will be mediated by Co-Worker Intentionality.
METHODOLOGY
Sample and procedures
To test these hypotheses, I gathered data from 17 organizations in the Netherlands by means of an online questionnaire. The questionnaire contained questions for both employees and their supervisors.
14 responses remained, a response rate of 66.9%. Among the employees 40.7% were female, with an age ranging from 21 to 62 years (M = 39.5; SD = 11.2). Their average organizational tenure was 113.6 months (SD = 123.5), and they had been working with their respective supervisor for an average of 39.6 months (SD = 43). From the 18 supervisors, 17 filled in the questionnaire, a response rate of 94.4%. Among them 17.6% were female. Their average age ranged from 24 to 57 years (M = 41.9; SD = 8.9), and they had been with their respective firm for an average of 80.2 months (SD = 42.7).
Measures
The questionnaire was administrated in Dutch. All measurement instruments were originally developed in English and were translated into Dutch by means of a back translation procedure (Brislin, 1986).
Co-Worker OCB. To assess co-worker OCB, I used the scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990), which originally includes 24 items spread across 5 dimensions: Altruism, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy and Civic Virtue. LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002) investigated these dimensions and suggested that measures of the five dimensions of OCB can be seen as ‘equivalent indicators’ of OCB, and therefore together form the construct of OCB. I followed Koys (2001) by using items from each dimension. The two items of each dimension with the highest factor loading, as found by Poskakoff et al. (2002), were included in this measure. The total scale used consisted of 10 items that were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). In line with Tepper et al. (2004), and Chen et al. (2013) co-worker OCB has been measured globally (i.e. ‘my colleagues..’). All items started with “My colleagues…”. Example items are: “…attendance at work is above the norm”, “consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters”, “…are mindful of how their behavior affects other people’s jobs”. Internal consistency was acceptable (α = .78).
15 make ‘mountains out of molehills’”, and “...willingly help others who have work related problems”. Internal consistency was acceptable (α = .80).
Co-worker Reputation. Co-worker reputation was measured by using the personal reputation scale used by Laird, Zboja and Ferris (2012) and originally developed by Hochwarter, Ferris, Zinko, Arnell and James (2007). Laird et al. (2012) divided the original 12-item scale in 2 dimensions, the character dimension of reputation consisting of 5 items and the performance dimension of reputation that consists of 7 items. Since this research is mainly focused on the character dimension of reputation (i.e., whether co-workers are seen as individual’s with a good reputation), I measured co-worker reputation with the 5-item character dimension of reputation. Items were re-worded to measure co-worker instead of personal reputation. The items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Example items are: My colleagues... “…are highly regarded by others”, and “…have a good reputation”. Internal consistency was acceptable (α = .90).
Co-worker Intentionality. Allen and Rush‘s (1998) 12-item attribution of motive scale was used to measure co-worker intentionality. To distinguish between altruistic and instrumental motives, Allen and Rush designed 6 items to measure each of them. Items were measured on a 5 point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Individuals were asked what they think the reason or cause for behaviors considered ‘above and beyond the call of duty’ performed by their colleagues on the work floor might be. Example items are: My colleagues do this because of their… “…Desire to show off expertise”, and “…Desire to impress the boss”. While measuring both, I only used the instrumental motives, since a lower reputation is more likely when workers attribute co-workers’ OCBs to impression management instead of to altruistic motives (Thorsteinson, 1998). Internal consistency was acceptable (α = .90).
16
Control Variables. To rule out confounding effects on the dependent variables not directly relevant in this research, I controlled for the effects of the demographic variables age and gender, as these factors have been shown to possibly influence OCB (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Chen et al., 2013; Bommer et al., 2003). I also controlled for tenure, since firm-specific knowledge that has been acquired over time may be more readily enable employees to help their co-workers (Bommer et al., 2003), and therefore potentially influence OCB.
Analytic strategy
Regression analyses were conducted to assess the hypotheses. I proposed that co-worker OCB would positively relate to own OCB (i.e. Hypothesis 1). Second I proposed that that co-worker OCB would be positively related to co-worker reputation (i.e. Hypothesis 2), and that co-worker reputation would be positively related own OCB (i.e. Hypothesis 3). I also proposed that Machiavellianism would be related to related to co-worker intentionality (Hypothesis 7). To test these four hypotheses, I used Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models. To test the indirect effects of Hypotheses 4, and the conditional effects of Hypotheses 5 and 6, I estimated bootstrapped confidence intervals using the PROCESS macro, a tool developed by Andrew F. Hayes (Hayes, 2013). Finally to test the mediated-moderation-mediation (i.e. the whole model) model 7 in PROCESS was used, which estimated the bootstrapped confidence intervals. In this model, Machiavellianism was treated as a covariate.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
17 indicates that Machiavellianism is positively correlated with co-worker intentionality (r = 0.42, p < 0.01), and negatively with co-worker OCB (r = -0.23, p < 0.05), co-worker reputation (r = -0.24, p < 0.01), and own OCB (r = -0.23, p < 0.05) suggesting that employees who score high on Machiavellianism are more likely to attribute intentionality to the OCBs of their co-workers, perceive their co-workers of performing less OCB and having a less good reputation than do employees with low scores on Machiavellianism. They are also less likely to engage in OCB themselves.
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Note: n = 113, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Gender is coded as 1 = male, 2 = female. Cronbach’s Alpha is given in
parentheses.
Co-worker OCB, Own OCB, and Co-worker Reputation
Table 2 present the models and results for Hypothesis 1, 2, 3 and 4. Controlling for age, gender, and tenure, Model 2 indicates that co-worker OCB is not significantly associated with own OCB (B = -0.07, p = 0.50). Therefore Hypothesis 1 is not supported. Furthermore, Model 6 demonstrates that worker OCB is positively and significantly associated with worker reputation (B = 0.54, p < 0.01). Therefore Hypothesis 2, which proposed that co-worker OCB is positively related to co-co-worker reputation is supported. Furthermore it can be seen from Model 3 that co-worker reputation is marginal positively associated with own OCB (B = 0.16, p = 0.08), which provides marginal support for Hypothesis 3.
Additionally, the bottom of Table 2 shows the proposed meditational role of co-worker reputation in the relationship between co-co-worker OCB and own OCB (Hypothesis 4), by presenting the bootstrap results for this indirect effect. As can be seen from the table, co-worker OCB has an indirect positive relationship (through co-co-worker reputation) with own OCB (effect = 0.11 [0.03; 0.24]), providing support for Hypothesis 4.
18
TABLE 2
Regression results for mediation of Co-worker Reputation
Own OCB Co-worker Reputation
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Variable B B B B B B Constant -.01 (0.09) -.01 (0.09) -.01 (0.09) 5.12***(0.07) .00 (0.10) -.00 (0.08) Age -.16 (0.12) -.14 (0.12) -.15 (0.12) -.05 (0.10) -.10 (0.12) -.26**(0.11) Gender -.04 (0.10) -.03 (0.10) -.06 (0.10) -.03 (0.07) .10 (0.10) .04 (0.08) Tenure -.10 (0.12) -.10 (0.12) -.10 (0.12) -.10 (0.09) .05 (0.12) .08 (0.11) Co-worker OCB -.07 (0.10) -.16*(0.09) .54***(0.09) Co-worker Reputation .16*(0.09) .21**(0.08) R² 0.05 0.05 0.08* 0.11** 0.02 0.28***
Bootstrap results for indirect effect
Effect S.E. LL 95% CI UL 95% CI
Co-worker OCB 0.11** 0.05 0.03 0.24
Note: n = 113. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. Gender is coded as 1 = male, 2 = female.
* p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01. Standard error is given in parentheses.
Moderating Role of Co-worker Intentionality
Table 3 presents the results for Hypothesis 5 and 6. Hypothesis 5 proposed that the relationship between co-worker OCB and reputation is moderated by co-worker intentionality. As can be indicated from the first column in Table 3, the main effect of co-worker intentionality on co-worker reputation, and the interaction effect of co-worker intentionality and co-worker OCB are both not significant (B = 0.09, p = 0.27; B = -0.05, p = 0.43, respectively). Therefore Hypothesis 5, which states that the positive relationship between co-worker OCB and co-co-worker reputation is weaker when co-co-worker intentionality is high, is not supported.
19
TABLE 3
Regression results for moderated mediation
Co-worker Reputation Own OCB
Variable B B Constant 5.12*** (0.08) -.00 (0.08) Age -.24**(0.10) -.25**(0.11) Gender .03 (0.08) .03 (0.08) Tenure .08 (0.10) .08(0.11) Co-worker OCB .48***(0.09) .51***(0.09) Co-worker Intentionality .09 (0.08) .09 (0.09) Co-worker OCB x Co-worker Intentionality -.05(0.06) -.05*(0.06)
Co-worker Reputation .27**(0.11)
R² 0.36*** 0.11**
Co-worker Reputation Effect S.E. CI 95% LL CI 95% UL Bootstrapped confidence intervals for the mediating mechanism of co-worker reputation, conditional on values of co-worker intentionality.
-1 SD Co-worker Intentionality 0.15 0.07 0.04 0.34 M Co-worker Intentionality 0.14 0.06 0.03 0.28 +1 SD Co-worker Intentionality 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.27
Note: n = 113. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. Gender is coded as 1 = male, 2 = female.
* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01. Standard error is given in parentheses.
Mediated-Moderation-Mediation
Model 2 of Table 4 presents the results of Hypothesis 7, in which I proposed that Machiavellianism is positively related to co-worker intentionality. As can be indicated from this model, Machiavellianism is positively related to co-worker intentionality (B = 0.42, p < 0.01), which provides support for Hypothesis 7.
20
TABLE 4
Regression results for mediated moderation mediation.
Co-worker Intentionality Own OCB
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variable B B B Constant -.00 (0.09) -.01 (0.09) -.00 (0.08) Age -.20 (0.12) -.16 (0.11) -.24**(0.11) Gender .08 (0.10) .07 (0.09) .03 (0.08) Tenure .00 (0.12) -.04 (0.11) .10 (0.10) Machiavellianism .42***(0.09) -.25*** (0.09) Co-worker Reputation .22**(0.11) Co-worker OCB .44***(0.09) Co-worker Intentionality .20**(0.09)
Co-worker OCB x Co-worker Intentionality
-.07(0.06)
R² 0.05 0.22*** 0.16***
Co-worker Reputation Effect S.E. CI 95% LL CI 95% UL Bootstrapped confidence intervals for the mediating mechanism of co-worker reputation, conditional on values of co-worker intentionality.
-1 SD Co-worker Intentionality 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.30 M Co-worker Intentionality 0.10 0.06 0.00 0.24 +1 SD Co-worker Intentionality 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.21
Note: n = 113. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. Gender is coded as 1 = male, 2 = female.
* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01. Standard error is given in parentheses.
DISCUSSION
21 Theoretical Implications
The results of this study contribute to the literature on OCB in various ways. In line with earlier findings on the impact of co-worker OCB on fellow employees (Chen et al., 2013; Tepper et al., 2004), no direct relationship was found between co-worker OCB and own OCB, contrary to my initial hypothesis. All of these studies show that there are multiple factors that influence this direct relationship. Therefore it can be presumed that the relationship between co-worker OCB and own OCB can be explained by other factors, which makes this relationship more complex. This research contributes to the literature on OCB and its influence on fellow employees by showing that co-worker reputation is one of these factors. Therefore finding no direct relationship between co-worker OCB and own OCB can be explained by the fact that an increased reputation, which provides status and acceptance (Anderson and Shirako, 2008), is an important mediating factor that explains why fellow employees will perform OCB of themselves.
Additionally this study examined whether co-worker intentionality might influence the relationship between co-worker OCB and own OCB through co-worker reputation. Unfortunately, support for these hypotheses was not found. A possible explanation for these unsatisfactory results comes from Allen and Rush (1998), who found that employees who frequently engage in OCB are more liked and thought to be committed to the organization, but only when altruistic rather than instrumental motives were considered. The positive effects of the altruistic motives are more reinforcing than the presumed negative effects of the instrumental motives (Allen & Rush, 1998; Halbesleben, Bowler, Bolino & Turnley, 2010). In other words: the effects that co-worker OCB has largely occur due to the favorable impressions of the employee that engages in OCB, and not so much by the negative impressions (as investigated in this research).
22 attributing high intentionality to the OCBs of co-workers. Therefore, the overall model was not supported. This finding was not that surprising since co-worker intentionality already did not moderate the relationship between co-worker OCB and own OCB, through co-worker reputation.
Presumably it is not co-worker intentionality per se that determines whether employees eventually engage in OCB of their own, as much as Machiavellianism itself. In this study I found a negative correlation between Machiavellianism and own OCB. Therefore it can be presumed that people who score high on the trait Machiavellianism are less likely to engage in OCB of their own. As research showed, High Machs have a general negative world-view, they are cynical and have a negativity attitude towards the organizations and others (Rauthmann & Will, 2011; Christie & Geis, 1970), this could make it less likely that they will engage in OCB to help their fellow employees and the organization. This leads to important practical implications as well.
Practical Implications
23 In addition, it can create a positive culture where OCB the norm. As mentioned earlier, the social learning theory states that individual’s attitudes and behaviors are strongly influenced by what other people do (Bandura, 1977). OCB of co-workers can give information about the social norms and the normative way to behave in a given context (Chen et al., 2013). In this way an organizational culture can be created were OCB is the appropriate and common way to behave. As argued and found by Bommer et al. (2003), OCB of several employees in the organization may induce the creation of positive subcultures where behaviors that are beneficial for the organization occur and are encouraged. Managers are therefore well advised to emphasize through the whole organization and among their employees that this is the culture the organization wants to create and aspires. In such a culture, where co-workers are indirectly required to perform OCB fellow employees and especially new hires learn how to behave by observing and imitating their co-workers behaviors. This might lead to subsequent OCB from which organizations can benefit, since positive outcomes of OCB are among others: an increase in performance quality and quantity (MacKenzie et al., 1998).
Besides a good reputation and co-worker OCB, organizations should also be aware of the influence of Machiavellianism. High Machs are more likely to experience that co-workers engage in OCB due to self-serving reasons, since they have a negative and cynical world-view. This could influence the culture some organizations want to create in a negative way, by for example increasing organizational politics (Bolino and Turnley, 2005). Organizations would be well advised to align this information with their organizational strategy and culture and be aware of the possible negative influence Machiavellianism can have on organizational culture.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
24 than it actually is. If co-worker OCB is in reality higher, it is possible that the significant results found in this study could also be higher. Second, it is also possible that some employees rated co-worker OCB and co-worker reputation higher than it actually is, since they do not want to be disloyal towards their co-workers, or because they are insecure. If the ratings are in reality lower, it is possible that lower effects might be found in the relationship between co-worker OCB and own OCB, through co-worker reputation. Both of these effects might however cancel each other out, and will therefore affect the reliably of this research not much. In addition, this research emphasized among the participants that the questionnaire would be administered anonymously, which reduces the chances of socially desirable answers (Malhotra, 2010).
Another potential limitation is the data collected in this study. All the collected data are cross-sectional, meaning that no causal inferences can be made. If for example, employees experience co-worker OCB to be highly intentional, they could adjust their attitudes about people and the world in general, and therefore score higher on the Machiavellianism scale. In this way, co-worker intentionality would increase the rating of Machiavellianism instead of the other way around. However, since most of the results presented in this study are in accordance with earlier studies (e.g., Bolino, 1999; Chen et al., 2013;Tepper et al., 2004), it is likely that the causal setup of the hypotheses in this study is superior to alternatives. Future research should consider using a longitudinal study that measures OCB over time, since results may prove to be different in a longitudinal study (Chen et al., 2013).
The specific sample of this research is another potential limitation. This sample used data from employees of multiple different organizations. This might lead to generalizability problems, since it is possible that OCB is more common in certain sectors or industries than in others. For example, some of the organizations in this study were more focused on customer service, whereas others were manufacturing companies. It is likely that differences in the nature of the business can result in different attitudes regarding OCB, where OCB is norm in some organizations, but rare in others (e.g. a political climate). Although generalizability can therefore be a problem, the sample used in this study is highly representative, since multiple different organizations operate in the business world. Future research could however replicate this study by focusing on a particular industry or sector, to see whether the same or different results are found.
25 located in a single country, the Netherlands. Therefore results may not generalize to other national cultures like the United States, or Asia, were employees might be considered to be more individualistic or collectivistic regarding Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. For example, Moorman and Blakely (1995) found that employees who hold collectivistic values or norms are more likely to perform OCB. The same results were found by Zinko et al. (2010). Therefore, taking into account that the Netherlands can be considered to be an individualistic country, other and perhaps more positive results might be found in more collectivistic cultures. Future research could replicate this study in a collectivistic country, and compare the findings with the findings of this present study.
This study gathered data on co-worker OCB for the aggregate (e.g. ‘My co-workers..’) instead of for specific co-workers, which could form another potential limitation. By using data in the aggregate, it could well be that an employee experiences that only some of his/her employees engage in OCB, while others not. The aggregate makes no distinction between such experiences, thereby potentially inflating or deflating the correlations through common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). However, this research might mitigate that concern since using fellow employees as a rating source is not inconsistent with the goal of this research, which is to understand how subordinates perceive their co-workers’ OCBs and whether this influences their own behavior. Still it makes it a fruitful area for future research, whereby researchers should ask participants to assess OCB of several specific co-workers instead of asking employees about the OCB of their co-workers in general. After that, the data of these specific co-workers can be aggregated into one construct to provide a more reliable construct of that employee’s perceived co-worker OCB.
26 coordinate activities among team members (Koys, 2001), while others have shown that the tendency to engage in OCB could decrease when working in groups, because some employees are inclined to engage in social loafing (Şeşen et al., 2014).
Finally, a last potential limitation of this study is the incorporation of only one mediator, namely co-worker reputation. Although every significant result found in this research is a contribution, given the inherent difficulties in predicting human behavior (Heneman et al., 2012) and a sample size of just above 100, it also leaves room for multiple other predictors of why fellow employees engage in OCB. One possible alternative mediator besides co-worker reputation is reciprocity. Bandura (1986) suggested in his reciprocity model, which is based on the social exchange theory, that if one party helps the other, the other should reciprocate that behavior. In this way, both of the two parties are giving and receiving valuable items, through which a relationship is build (Gouldner, 1960; Şeşen et al., 2014). Employees are motivated to reciprocate the other’s positive actions and goodwill in order to maintain this relationship (Chen et al., 2013). Therefore one could expect that it is likely that employees who benefit from OCB of their co-workers, are more likely to reciprocate that behavior by engaging in OCB themselves. This is also found by Chiaburu and Harrison (2008), who noted that employees who got repeated positive inputs from their co-workers, were more encouraged to reciprocate and show more positive interpersonal actions.
In addition, by incorporating reciprocity into the model, it is also possible that different effects might be found for the influence of co-worker intentionality and Machiavellianism. It might for example be the case that fellow employees do not feel the urge to reciprocate if co-workers perform OCB out of egoistic motives, since they do not consider their relationship to be sincere. Furthermore, this study already found that high Machs are more likely to expect that co-workers engage in OCB out of self-serving motives. Therefore it is also plausible that high Machs might be less willing to reciprocate the behaviors of their co-workers, because they experience that their co-workers engage in OCB because of egoistic motives. Therefore future research could extent the model of this research by incorporating reciprocity into the model.
27 Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002). Fellow employees might therefore engage in less OCB of their own if they are headed by an abusive supervisor. Investigating these potential mediators and moderators helps us to confirm or refute the idea that co-worker OCBs have a broad effect on fellow employees, and that the effects depend largely on the context in which OCBs are performed (Tepper et al., 2004).
CONCLUSION
This present research is one of the few studies that investigated the role that co-worker OCB has in determining fellow employees’ reactions (Bommer et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2013; Tepper et al., 2004). From earlier research we already know quite a bit about when and why employees engage in OCB, and that it is a highly desirable behavior that can increase organizational effectiveness (Bowler et al., 2010; Tepper et al., 2004; Şeşen et al., 2014). Findings about employees’ reactions however where inconclusive. This research clarified some of these effects, by arguing and showing that much of the effect that co-worker OCB has on fellow employees’ OCB is indirect, through co-worker reputation. To foster fellow employees’ OCB, this research suggest that organizations should foster an environment of positive recognition, which should improve employees’ image and encourage OCB. This increases the chances that if one employee engages in OCB, the rest will follow. In addition, I contribute to the literature by examining the concept of Machiavellianism, and showed that high Machs are more likely to attribute egoistic motives to the OCB of co-workers. The inconsistent findings of co-worker intentionality and the relatively low percentage of variation in fellow employees’ OCB may be elucidated by incorporating more mediating or moderating variables into the model. Therefore I strongly encourage future researchers to identify and examine more potential variables to increase our knowledge on what drives fellow employees to engage in OCB themselves.
REFERENCES
28
Anderson, C., Shirako, A. (2008). Are individuals’ reputations related to their history of behavior?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94: 320-333.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 1-26.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Barclay, P. (2004). Trustworthiness and behavioral altruism can also solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25: 209-220.
Baumeister, R.F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91: 3-26.
Bergeron, D.M., (2007). The Potential Paradox of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Good Citizens at What Cost? Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1078-1095.
Bolino, M.C. (1999). Citizenship and Impression Management: Good Soldiers or Good Actors?
Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 82-98.
Bolino, M.C., & Turnley, W.H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative an role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(4): 195-213.
Bommer, W.H., Miles, E.W., & Grover, S.L. (2003). Does one good turn deserve another? Coworker influences on employee citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 181-196.
Bowler, M., Halbesleben, J.R.B., & Paul, J.R.B. (2010). If you’re close with the leader, you must be a brownnose: The role of leader-member relationships in follower, leader, and coworker attributions of organizational citizenship behavior motives. Human Resource
29
Brankley, A.E., Rule, N.O. (2014). Threat perception: How psychopathy and Machiavellianism relate to social perceptions during completion. Personality and Individual Differences, 71: 103-107.
Brislin, R.W. (1986). The Wording and Translation of Research Instruments. In W.L. Lonner and J.W. Berry (Ed.), Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research: 136-164. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burkhardt, M.E. (1994). Social interaction effects following a technological change: A longitudinal investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4):869-898.
Chen, Z., Takeuchi, R., & Shum, C. (2013). A Social Information Processing Perspective of Coworker Influence on a Focal Employee. Organization Science. 24(6): 1618-1639.
Cheung, M., Peng, K.Z., & Wong, C.S. (2014). Supervisor attribution of subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior motives. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(8): 922-937.
Chiaburu, D.S., & Harrison, D.A. (2008). Do Peers Make the Place? Conceptual Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Coworker Effects on Perceptions, Attitudes, OCBs, and Performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(5): 1082-1103.
Christie, R., & Geis, F.L., (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism, AcademicPress, New York.
Dahling, J.J., Whitaker, B.G., & Levy, P.E. (2009). The Development and Validation of a New Machiavellianism Scale. Journal of Management, 25(2): 219-257.
Davies, M., & Stone, T. (2003). “Synthesis: psychological understanding and social skills,”. In B Repacholi and V. Slaugther (Ed.), Individual differences in Theory of Mind: 305-353. New York, Psychology Press.
Emler, N. (1984). Differential involvement in delinquency: Toward an interpretation in terms of reputation management. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 13: 173-239.
Ferris, G.R., Bhawuk, D.P.S., Feor, D.B., & Judge, T.A. (1995). Organizational politics and citizenship: Attributions of intentionality and construct definition. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.),
Advances in attribution theory: An organizational perspective: 231-252. DelRay Beach, FL:
30
Ferris, G.R., Munyon, T.P., Basik, K., & Buckley, M.R. (2008). The performance evaluation context: Social, emotional, cognitive, political and relationship components. Human Resource
Management Review, 18: 146-163.
Ferris, G.R., Judge, T.A., Rowland, K.M., & Fitzgibbons, D.E. (1994). Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 58: 101-135.
Gioia, D.A., & Sims, H.P. (1983). Perceptions of managerial power as a consequence of managerial behavior and reputation. Journal of Management, 9: 7-26.
Goldstein, N., Cialdini, R., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Re-examining the influence of individual values on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 16: 1319-1329.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review, 25: 161-178.
Grant, A.M. (2008). Does intrinsic Motivation Fuel the Prosocial Fire? Motivational Synergy in Predicting Persistence, Performance, and Productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1): 48-58.
Grant, A.M., & Mayer, D.M. (2009). Soldiers and Good Actors: Prosocial and Impression
Management Motives as Interactive Predictors of Affiliative Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(4): 900-912.
Gunnthorsdottir, A., McCabe, K.., & Smith, V. (2002). Using the Machiavellianism instrument to predict trustworthiness in a bargaining game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23: 49-66.
Halbesleben, J.R.B., Bowler, W. M., Bolino, M.C., & Turnley, W.H. (2010). Organizational Concern, Prosocial Values, or Impression Management? How Supervisors Attribute Motives to
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6): 1450-1489.
31
Hayes, A.F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press. The PROCESS macro for SPSS
and SAS, retrieved from (www.processmacro.org).
Heneman III, H.G., Judge, T.A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2012) Staffing Organizations. Middleton: Mendota House, Inc.
Hunter, J.E., Gerbing, D.W., & Boster, F.J. (1982). Machiavellian Beliefs and Personality: Construct Invalidity of the Machiavellianism Dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6): 1293-1305.
Johnson, D.E., Erez, A., Kiker, D.S., & Motowidlo, S.J. (2002). Liking and Attributions of Motives as Mediators of the Relationships Between Individuals’ Reputations, Helpful Behaviors, and Raters’ Reward Decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4): 808-815.
Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92 (5): 1286-1298
Kim, Y.J. (2009). A dyadic perspective on helping OCB: The effects of motives and affect. A dissertation. Michigan State University.
Koys, D.J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel
Psychology, 54: 101-114
Malhotra, N.K. (2010). Marketing Research. An applied orientation. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
McHoskey, J. W. (1995). Narcissism and Machiavellianism. Psychological Reports, 77(3): 755-759.
McHoskey, J.W., Worzel, W., Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and Psychopathy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 192-210.
32
Novak, M.A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437: 1291-1298.
Organ, D. W., (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, England: Lexington Books.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature, antecedents and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3): 351-363.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107-142.
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.
Raub, W., & Weesie, J. (1990). Reputation and Efficiency in Social Interactions: An Example of Network Effects. American Journal of Sociology, 96(3):626-654.
Rauthmann, J.F., & Will, T. (2011). Proposing a multidimensional Machiavellianism conceptualization. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(3): 391-404.
Regan, D.T. (1978). Attributional aspects of interpersonal attraction.. Harvey, J.H., Ickes, W., & Kidd, R.F. (Ed). New directions in attributional research. Lawrence Erlbaum Hillside, NJ.
33
Şeşen, H., Soran, S., and Caymaz, E. (2014). Dark Side of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB): Testing a Model between OCB, Social Loafing, and Organizational Commitment.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(5): 125-135.
Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Hoobler, J., and Ensley, M.D. (2004). Moderators of the Relationships Between Coworkers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Fellow Employees’ Attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3): 455-465.
Thomas, K.W., & Pondy, L.R. (1977). Toward an ‘intent’ model of conflict management among principal parties. Human Relations, 30: 1089-1102.
Thorsteinson, T.J. (1998). Rater’s attribution of extra-role behaviors: Good citizen or ingratiatory? Dissertation. Bowling Green State University.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory Citizenship Behavior: Theorizing Some Dark Sides of the Good Soldier Syndrome in Organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 36(1): 77-93.
Williams, K.M., Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D.L. (2010). Identifying and profiling scholastic cheaters: Their personality, cognitive ability, and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 16: 293-307.
Wong, P.T.P., & Weiner, B. (1981). When People Ask “Why” Questions, and the Heuristics of Attributional Search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4): 650-663.
Zellers, K.L., Tepper, B.J., & Duffy, M.K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 1068-1076.
Zinko, R., Ferris, G.R., Blass, F.R., & Laird, M.D. (2007). Toward a theory of reputation in organizations. In J.J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources
management 26: 163-204. Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science Ltd.
34
Zinko, R., Furner, C.P., Royle, T., Hall, A. (2010). Self-perceptions of Our Personal Reputations: The Mediating Role of Image in the Development of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. The
