The role of other orientation in organiz

The role of other orientation in

organizational citizenship behavior

SCOTT W. LESTER1*, BRUCE M. MEGLINO2

AND M. AUDREY KORSGAARD2

1_{Department of Management and Marketing, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire,} Wisconsin, U.S.A.

2

Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, U.S.A.

Summary This article draws on social exchange theory and the theory of other orientation to examine how job satisfaction and individual differences are related to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Previous research specifying a direct effect for individual differences on OCB has yielded disappointing results. In contrast, this study examines the moderating role of individual differences in the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. As hypothesized, results show a weaker relationship between job satisfaction and OCB for persons who are higher in other orientation. We discuss the theoretical implications of this finding and directions for future research. Copyright#2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

The origin of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) can be traced to classical management theorists and practitioners (e.g., Barnard, 1938; Katz & Kahn, 1966; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939) who observed that constructive, cooperative behaviors extending beyond an employee’s job requirements are necessary for the successful functioning of an organization. Constructs such as organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992), prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), and contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) are similar to OCB in that they often share the common characteristics of being important to the organization yet are unspecified by employees’ formal job requirements. The fact that labor unions are able to use employees’ perfect adherence to formal rules and job requirements as a tactic to degrade productivity (Fossum, 1992) attests to the importance of these forms of cooperative behaviors. The value of OCB is particularly noteworthy in the context of teams in that research shows that OCB directed at the team is related to objective indicators of team effectiveness (Podsakoff, Aherne, & MacKenzie, 1997).

Empirical investigations of OCB have primarily focused on identifying predictors of this behavior. Indeed, meta-analyses (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000) describe a wide array of such predictors. These predictors fall into two broad classes, job attitudes such

J. Organiz. Behav.29, 829–841 (2008)

Published online 15 November 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)DOI: 10.1002/job.504

as job satisfaction, and individual differences. Studies have found substantial support for a positive relationship between job satisfaction and various forms of OCB. Evidence for the relationship between individual differences and OCB, however, has been less forthright.

A variety of individual differences have been investigated, most notably characteristics such as other orientation that involve a predisposition to act in a prosocial way. Evidence for such individual differences is weak and inconsistent, leading some (e.g., Organ & Ryan, 1995) to posit that individual differences do not have a direct impact on OCB. Additionally, while social exchange theory provides a framework for understanding the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB (see e.g., Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Organ, 1990), there is no corresponding theoretical linkage between individual differences and OCB. Consequently, it is not clear how individual differences and job satisfaction might collectively influence OCB.

In this investigation, we maintain that individual differences are more properly viewed as a moderator of the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. In adopting this approach, we integrate theory on the job satisfaction–OCB link with theory on individual differences in prosocial behavior. Specifically, we employ social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to argue that the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB can reflect different degrees of self-interested and rational processing. We next draw on the theory of other orientation (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004), which states that individual differences in other orientation are associated with less self-interested and rational processing. We then integrate these two theoretical approaches to examine how other orientation moderates the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. We test this relationship in a longitudinal field study using multi-source data.

Social exchange theory and OCB

As noted earlier, social exchange theory is perhaps the most often cited theoretical basis for OCB (see e.g., Cropanzano et al., 2003; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Organ, 1990). Social exchange theory describes the voluntary exchange of benefits that occur between two parties. Within this framework, OCB is a form of benefit provided by individuals within the social exchange relationship. According to social exchange theory, norms or rules of reciprocity play a central role in governing and motivating the exchange of benefits between these parties. Generally speaking, the principle of reciprocity dictates that an individual who is the recipient of a benefit from another party should provide a benefit in kind.

The influence of reciprocity in motivating exchanges is manifested in at least two distinct ways (see Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). First, reciprocity functions as a moral norm, which motivates behavior, such as helping, and creates a moral obligation to return that behavior in kind. Second, because it is a widely shared societal norm, the norm of reciprocity creates an expectation that benefits will be reciprocated. Within this more instrumental framework, persons are motivated to provide benefits such as helpful behaviors because they ‘are motivated by the returns they [their actions] are expected to bring. . .from others’ (Blau, 1964, p. 91). Thus, in contrast to reciprocity as an internalized moral norm

(i.e., motivation based on what is right or correct), the mechanism of expected reciprocity represents a strategic and self-interested motivation for engaging in social exchanges (Perugini, Gallucci, Presaghi, & Ercolani, 2003). It is this latter mechanism of expected reciprocity that is relevant to the job satisfaction–OCB relationship.

satisfaction is indicative of a favorable exchange history, highly satisfied employees are more motivated to engage in OCB as a means of obtaining future benefits. Thus, social exchange theory posits an explanation for the job satisfaction–OCB relationship that involves a judgment process that is rational and self-interested in that it is based on an individual’s consideration of his or her future personal outcomes.

Theory of other orientation

In the theory of other orientation, other orientation is defined as the extent to which individuals are concerned with the welfare of others. The core premise of the theory is that, in pursuit of other-oriented goals, individuals higher in other orientation will rely less on rational and self-interested processing (Korsgaard & Meglino, in press; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004). Drawing on research on behavioral decision making (Bazerman, 1993) and self-interest (Cropanzano, Stein, & Goldman, in press), the theory of other orientation (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004) specifies that rational and self-interested choices involve the conscious pursuit of personal goals, which involves weighing the consequences of one’s actions. That is, such choice is preceded and determined by a consideration of costs and benefits to the self. The theory of other orientation posits that individuals higher in other orientation are less apt to consider potential consequences to the self when making choices and acting.

This core premise of the theory of other orientation is based on evolutionary perspectives on altruism (Brewer, 2004; Simon, 1990). These perspectives posit that, given the limitations of bounded rationality, expending scarce cognitive resources in an exclusive reliance on rational judgment processes (i.e., weighing personal consequences before acting) and on direct personal experience (e.g., extensive trial and error) can ultimately be harmful to the organism’s survival. On the other hand, individuals who rely on social information provided by others (i.e., via mimicry, vicarious learning, and normative influence) can acquire information more quickly and with fewer risks and costs. Thus, openness to social influence can be adaptive. Such openness to social influence involves adopting and acting on cues about modes of behavior, such as rules, norms, and standards, in lieu of assessing courses of actions based on a weighting of anticipated consequences. That is, openness to social influence involves a less rational process of matching behavior to norms and social expectations. This mode of reasoning is referred to as heuristic processing (Korsgaard & Meglino, in press).

The evolutionary perspective outlined above suggests that openness to social influence is inextricably tied to other orientation. Brewer (2004), for example, argued that openness to social cues is motivated by the fundamental human drive of belongingness. Thus, factors that stimulate the belongingness motive also lead to conformity and cooperation. In addition, since societies attempt to instill other-oriented values in their members, openness to social influence should ultimately reinforce other-interest by leading to the acquisition of other-oriented values (Simon, 1990). Thus, individuals who have internalized strong other-oriented values are less apt to engage in rational processing and more likely to rely on norms and social cues that promote collective interests, albeit occasionally at the expense of individuals’ self-interest (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Simon, 1990, 1993). This premise was supported in a study by Korsgaard, Meglino and Lester (1996), who found that the choice behavior of persons who were higher in other-oriented values was less likely to be based on a systematic integration of their existing beliefs and valences.

actions, individuals who are higher in other orientation may be less attuned to the personal consequences of expected reciprocity. This is not to say that persons higher in other orientation are insensitive to thenormof reciprocity; indeed, research suggests that such individuals are more apt to adhere to the norm of reciprocity even when it does not promote their self-interests (Perugini et al., 2003). Rather, we propose that the behavior of individuals higher in other orientation should be less influenced byexpectationsof reciprocity. Thus, cues regarding the expectations of reciprocation, such as a history of favorable exchanges, should have a weaker impact on persons higher in other orientation. As noted in the previous section, given that job satisfaction reflects a history of favorable exchanges between the parties to an exchange, the job satisfaction–OCB relationship is thought to be motivated by expected reciprocity. Thus, the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB should be weaker for individuals higher in other orientation. In summary, based on an integration of the theory of other orientation and social exchange theory, we propose that other orientation will moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. First, consistent with previous research on the predictors of OCB, we propose that job satisfaction will be positively related to OCB. By way of replication, this relationship is specified in Hypothesis 1. Second, we propose that the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB should beweakeramong persons who are higher in other orientation. This form of the relationship is specified in Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 1: Job satisfaction will be positively related to OCB.

Hypothesis 2: Other orientation will moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB such that the positive relationship between job satisfaction and OCB will be weaker among persons who are higher in other orientation.

Method

In the following study we examine the moderating effect of other orientation in the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. Because this study was set in a newly established organization that had adopted a team-based structure among its employees, we explicitly examined OCB directed at the team. Consistent with the team as the target of employees’ OCB, our measure of job satisfaction consisted of employees’ satisfaction with their team.

Participants

The data reported in this study are part of a larger study of teams and performance. Our sample consisted of 127 newly hired employees at a recently opened healthcare claims center in the Midwest. The average age of the respondents was 36 years, and the sample was predominantly female (90 per cent). Employees worked in one of 33 teams that were responsible for processing health care claims. The average team size was 14 and ranged from 3 to 38 which is similar to ranges observed in other organizational studies (e.g., Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Magjuka & Baldwin, 1991).

Research design and procedures

A common weakness in studies of OCB is the reliance on single source data, which is likely to result in artifactual or inflated relationships (Podsakoff et al., 2000). To counter this, we employed a longitudinal methodology incorporating data from multiple sources. We collected our data throughout the first 18 months of operations at the claims center. During the study, the center hired a number of new employees each month. Data collection was ongoing throughout the 18 months such that new employees completed their surveys at specified points in their tenure at the center. The first author administered all of the surveys on-site, and employees completed their surveys on company time and returned them directly to him.

Employees responded to the first survey after they were employed at the center for approximately 1 month (Time 1). At this point employees had completed a 3-week training program and had just begun working in their designated teams. This survey included a measure of other orientation and demographic questions. Although participation in the study was voluntary, all 210 newly hired claims processors at the center agreed to participate at Time 1. Employees responded to a second survey after they had worked in their teams for approximately 9 months (Time 2), which was roughly 10 months after they were hired. This second survey, which assessed job satisfaction, was completed by 168 of the employees, yielding a response rate of 80 per cent. Also at Time 2, supervisors rated employees’ team-directed OCB. We obtained these supervisor ratings for 145 employees, yielding a combined response rate for all three surveys of 69 per cent. Given listwise deletion of missing data across our three data sources, our overall analyses were therefore based on the 127 employees for whom we obtained complete data on all measures. There were no significant differences in gender, age or other orientation between the participants in our final sample (n¼127) and either the total 210 newly hired

employees or the 168 employees for whom we had incomplete data.

Measures

Other orientation

Accurately assessing other orientation is problematic because other orientation describes a mode of behavior (i.e., helping other persons) that is socially desirable. Thus, measures of other orientation are vulnerable to social desirability bias (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), which can seriously compromise the validity of the measure. This bias is present in normative (Likert-type) measures of other orientation (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987a). We addressed this issue by employing a forced-choice measure of other orientation. As described by Hicks (1970), forced-choice measures can be either normative or ipsative (Cattell, 1944). When the items that comprise the measure are matched in attractiveness and the irrelevant items are unscored, the procedure yields a normative measure with important properties that enhance its validity. Specifically, this procedure reduces leniency, severity, halo error, faking and response acquiescence (Hicks, 1970).

unscored. Scores ranged from 0 to 12 depending upon the number of times the respondent selected one of 12 statements representing the value of concern for others.

The Concern for Others subscale has demonstrated convergence with constructs that are related to other orientation, such as empathy (Davis, 1980) and social interest (Crandall, 1975), and divergence with measures of self-orientation, such as narcissism and self-enhancement (Korsgaard et al., 1996; McNeely, 1992; McNeely & Meglino, 1994). Test–retest reliability of the subscale estimated on a separate study of 358 job applicants over a 4-week period was acceptable (r¼.70). Because internal

consistency procedures can yield erroneous estimates of reliability for forced-choice scales (Baron, 1996; Tenopyr, 1988), Tenopyr (1988) recommended reporting the internal consistencies of such scales using the items in normative format. This procedure yielded an internal consistency of .95 for the Concern for Others subscale (Ravlin & Meglino, 1987a).

Job satisfaction

We assessed employees’ job satisfaction using six items adapted from the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Employees provided their responses to these items using a 7-point response format (1¼extremely dissatisfied; 7¼extremely satisfied). Because each team was composed

of a team leader and team members, our measure consisted of three items that assessed attitudes toward the team leader (e.g., ‘The amount of support and guidance that I receive from our team leader.’), and three items that assessed attitudes toward team members (e.g., ‘The people I talk to and work with as a team member.’).

Organizational citizenship behavior

We examined OCB that employees directed at their teams using a measure adapted from Podsakoff et al. (1997). This measure encompassed three-dimensions of OCB, specifically, helping, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Seven items assessed helping (e.g., ‘This employee always helps out a co-worker who has fallen behind in his/her work.’), three items assessedsportsmanship(e.g., ‘This employee finds fault with what other team members are doing.’ reverse scored), and five items assessedcivic virtue(e.g., ‘This employee frequently provides constructive suggestions about how the team can improve its effectiveness.’). Supervisors (team leaders) rated each team member at Time 2 on each item using a 5-point scale (1¼to no extent) to (5¼to a great extent). Research indicates that

dimensions of OCB are indicators of a latent variable (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). Therefore, we composed a single index for each dimension by averaging the items for that dimension and used three measures to estimate the latent variable of OCB.

Means, standard deviations and correlations for the previously described variables are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all measured variablesa

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Other orientation 7.16 1.94

2 Job satisfaction 5.11 1.13 .04 (.86)

3 Helping 3.79 0.66 .00 .23 _(.89)

4 Civic virtue 3.47 0.69 .05 .14 .64 _(.85)

5 Sportsmanship 4.15 0.80 .11 .04 .50 _{.10 (.85)}

6 OCB composite 3.76 0.56 .91 .19 _{.90 .78 .59 (.91)}

_p<_.05. a_n

Analyses

The hypotheses were tested employing structural equation modeling. Because we tested a hypothesis involving a moderator, we followed the procedure recommended by Cortina, Chen and Dunlap (2001); (see also Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992) for testing interactions in SEM. This procedure involves using a manifest variable for each predictor (job satisfaction and other orientation) and the interaction (the product of job satisfaction and other orientation). For each of these measures, we used the scale reliability to fix the relationship between the manifest variable and latent construct and to fix their error variances. For OCB, we estimated the latent variable from the three-dimensions of helping, civic virtue, and sportsmanship. Consistent with prior research involving OCB (Alge, Ballinger, Tangirala, & Oakley, 2006; Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007), we allowed the error terms between helping and civic virtue to covary to account for high correlation between these two dimensions.

Results

The results of the SEM analyses are reported in Table 2. Model 1 is the model containing only main effects and Model 2 includes the interaction. As indicated in this table, the main effects model provided a good fit of the data. In support of Hypothesis 1, the path from job satisfaction to OCB was significant and positive (B¼0.11, t¼2.25). Adding the interaction path in Model 2 provided a significantly

superior fit, as indicated by the change in Chi-square between Model 1 and Model 2 (Dx2_1¼5.33,

p<_{.05). This model is depicted in Figure 1 and indicates that the path from the interaction of job}

satisfaction and other orientation to OCB was significant (B¼ 0.26,t¼ 2.93).

To interpret the interaction, we plotted simple slopes for participants 1 SD above and below the mean on other orientation (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Because this procedure requires a single manifest variable for the dependent variable, we re-estimated the model described above using a manifest variable instead of a latent dependent variable for OCB (Cortina et al., 2001). Specifically, we used a composite measure of OCB (i.e., the mean of all OCB items,a_¼.91) as the dependent variable.

The results of this model are listed in Table 2 under Model 3 and indicated a good fit of the data (note that this model is not directly comparable to Models 1 and 2 because it involves a different composition of OCB). As hypothesized, the main effect of job satisfaction (B¼0.24,t¼2.58) and interaction

(B¼ 0.19,t¼ 2.07) were both significant. We used the path estimates from this model to plot the

interaction, which is depicted in Figure 2. As expected, there was a stronger, more positive relationship between job satisfaction and OCB among persons who were relatively low in other orientation, as compared to those who were relatively high in other orientation. These findings support Hypothesis 2.

Table 2. Summary of SEM model fit resultsa

Model x2 df NFI AGFI RMSEA SRMR

1 Main Effect Model 15.88 9 .94 .91 .078 .079

2 Main Effect and Interaction 10.55 8 .98 .93 .050 .061

3 Main effect and interaction with composite OCB 3.80 3 .86 .95 .046 .057

-2.00

Low other orientation: Y = 0.40 * Job Satisfaction + 0.03

High other orientation: Y = 0.08 * Job Satisfaction - 0.03

Figure 2. The moderating role of other orientation in the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior.

Discussion

The theory of social exchange (Blau, 1964) suggests that the job satisfaction–OCB relationship is based on a relatively rational and self-interested process wherein individuals choose to engage in OCB to garner future benefits. The theory of other orientation posits that choices and actions of persons higher in other orientation are less likely to be governed by rational and self-interested judgments. Integrating these perspectives led us to propose (Hypothesis 2) that the positive relationship between job satisfaction and OCB (replicated in support for Hypothesis 1) will be weaker among persons who are higher in other orientation. The findings for this study supported this hypothesis. That is, the job satisfaction–OCB link was less evident among persons higher in other orientation. In contrast, the job satisfaction–OCB relationship was significant among persons lower in other orientation. This pattern of results is consistent with expectations drawn from the social exchange explanation for the job satisfaction–OCB link.

Implications

Because our moderation hypothesis is grounded in two theories, social exchange theory and the theory of other orientation, our findings have implications for how both theories operate in the workplace. First, our findings inform on social exchange theory because they provide insight into when individuals are likely to be more sensitive to the norm of reciprocity. Specifically, social exchange involves expectations of reciprocity, which motivates self-interested and strategic exchanges (Perugini et al., 2003). Therefore, persons are more likely to exhibit OCB to the extent that they rely on self-interested and rational thinking. By extension, cues that raise expectations of reciprocity, such as those that signal the behavior will be recognized, should often lead individuals to exhibit more OCB. For example, employees are more likely to engage in OCB when it can be observed by persons who are capable of reciprocating such behavior or when it is evident to those who are responsible for awarding future desired outcomes (Bolino, 1999). Thus, the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB is likely to be stronger for OCB that is highly visible and weaker for OCB that is less obtrusive.

Second, the findings have implications for the theory of other orientation in that they suggest that the influence of other orientation on prosocial behavior is shaped by job attitudes such as job satisfaction. This is an important conclusion because it potentially clarifies inconsistent and weak findings regarding the relationship between individual differences (e.g., conscientiousness, positive affectivity, neuroticism, and agreeableness) and OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995). One reason for these weak findings is that, by focusing on the direct effects of dispositional factors, scholars may have incorrectly specified the effect of personality on OCB. As an alternative to a direct effect, Organ and Ryan (1995) suggest that dispositional factors may actually play an indirect or moderator role. However, these authors caution that any consideration of moderators should have a strong theoretical basis. Consistent with Organ and Ryan’s (1995) admonition, the theory of other orientation considered in light of social exchange (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004), provides a strong theoretical rationale for examining the joint effects of other orientation and job satisfaction on OCB.

The observed moderating role of individual differences also has practical implications for promoting OCB among employees. Because the appropriateness of certain strategies depends on characteristics of the employee, our findings argue for the use of multiple strategies for stimulating OCB. Specifically, promoting OCB may not be best achieved through hiring based on individual differences, but by creating environments that are conducive to OCB. However, the moderating role of other orientation suggests that there is not one specific set of strategies for encouraging OCB. Specifically, promoting the perception of satisfactory, mutually beneficial exchanges is likely to motivate OCB among employees who are lower in other orientation. Therefore, managers could foster the perception of fair and advantageous social exchanges by aligning expectations regarding the transactional elements of the psychological contract (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002).

An alternative strategy may be more appropriate among persons who are higher in other orientation. Specifically, management could encourage OCB by investing effort and resources in employees, thus creating a psychological obligation (see Schein, 1968) that is repaid through employees performing prosocial behavior. Coyle-Shapiro (2002) found that such efforts (e.g., involvement in decision making, support for learning new skills) prompted greater OCB among employees who were more accepting of the norm of reciprocity. Thus, given that theory suggests that other orientation is associated with greater susceptibility to normative influence (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004), this technique may be more effective among employees who are higher in other orientation. In summary, both of the aforementioned routes warrant attention when seeking to encourage OCB in a workforce that is diverse in other orientation.

Limitations and directions for future research

The findings of this study are subject to certain limitations. Team members had only been together for an average of 9 months. Since reciprocal helping requires some time to develop (Blau, 1964), the effects of the rational social exchange mechanism may have been understated. A more complete appraisal of this mechanism may require assessing OCB over a longer period of time or over various time intervals during a team’s development.

Another limitation is that we did not directly measure differences in the rational self-interested process that is theorized to underlie the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. However, we did test this process indirectly. Specifically, we employed a methodology, referred to as moderation-as-process(Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005), wherein the moderator represents conditions under which the process is present versus absent. This process is hypothesized to explain the independent variable–dependent variable relationship. If this assumed process is correct, then the IV–DV relationship should not be present (or be substantially weaker) when the conditions for the process are not present. This design is appropriate if the mediating process is difficult to measure and there is an established link between the process and the moderator.

In this study, we examined job satisfaction as an indicator of the favorableness of social exchange. One should note, however, that job satisfaction is but one indicator of the history of social exchanges. For example, perceived fairness and trust are other indicators of a favorable social exchange. Moreover these factors have also been linked to OCB. Therefore, future research should examine whether the processes detailed in the present study play a role in the impact of these other antecedents of OCB. Further, it is also possible that factors other than social exchange influence OCB. For example, group identity may motivate prosocial acts directed at the group as a means of enhancing the group’s status. Indeed, the amount of unexplained variance in our findings strongly suggests the presence of multiple motives for OCB, and encourages further exploration into the nature of these motivations.

Further research is also needed on the relationship between the norm of reciprocity and other orientation. In this study, we focused on expectations of reciprocity. However, reciprocity can also function as an internalized moral norm, which represents a mechanism that is distinct from the effect of expected reciprocity that is proposed to underlie the job satisfaction–OCB relationship (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960). Persons adhere to internalized norms because these norms dictate the correct or morally right behavior (Gouldner, 1960; Kelman, 2006). That is, individuals who have internalized a norm do not comply with norms in order to gain rewards or avoid sanctions; rather, adhering to the norm is a goal in itself (Perugini et al., 2003). In support of this claim, research suggests that individuals will grant favors in response to favors and will punish in response to violations of reciprocity even when there is no expectation of future exchanges and it is personally costly to do so (Perugini et al., 2003; Turillo, Folger, Lavelle, Umphress, & Gee, 2002). We speculate that, because other orientation is associated with internalizing prosocial norms, it may be positively related to reciprocity in such situations.

In summary, the present study contributes to the research on OCB by testing a theory-driven hypothesis that examined the indirect effects of individual differences on OCB. Previous research has concentrated almost exclusively on testing the direct effects of individual differences on OCB. The study further contributes to the literature by adopting a rigorous research design that includes longitudinal, multi-source data and the appropriate use of the moderation-as-process methodology to explore a process that is difficult to measure directly and heretofore has not been investigated. We hope that the current findings will spark further investigations into the mechanisms that influence individuals to engage (or not engage) in prosocial behavior.

Author biographies

Scott W. Lester is an Associate Professor of Management and the Director of the Center for Leadership at the University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire. He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the University of South Carolina. His current research interests include dyadic trust, prosocial orientation, psychological contracts, and service learning. He is currently in his second term on the executive board of the Midwest Academy of Management.

Bruce M. Meglinois Business Partnership Foundation Professor at the Moore School of Business of the University of South Carolina. He received a Ph.D. in Business Administration from the University of Massachusetts. Dr Meglino conducts research on work values, helping behavior, and rationality. He has been elected a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, and the American Psychological Society.

the topics of prosocial orientation, trust and organizational justice, and their relationship to inter-personal and intragroup cooperation. She has studied these issues in a variety of work settings, including supervisor–subordinate relationships, investor–entrepreneur relations, work teams, and joint ventures.

References

Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,91, 221–232.

Barnard, C. I. (1938).The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Baron, H. (1996). Strengths and limitations of ipsative measurement.Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology,69, 49–56.

Bazerman, M. H. (1993). Fairness, social comparison and irrationality. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.),Social psychology

in organizations(pp. 184–203). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Blau, P. M. (1964).Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors. Academy of

Management Review,24, 82–98.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, & W. C. Borman (Eds.),Personnel selection in organizations(pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brewer, M. B. (2004). Taking the social origins of human nature seriously: Toward a more imperialist social psychology.Personality and Social Psychology Review,8, 107–113.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behavior.Academy of Management Review,11, 710–725.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.Personnel Psychology,46, 823–850. Cattell, R. B. (1944). Psychological measurement: Normative, ipsative, and interactive.Psychological Review,51,

292–303.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the

behavioral sciences(3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,92, 909–927.

Cornelius, E. T., Ullman, J. C., Meglino, B. M., Czajka, J., & McNeely, B. L. (1985).A new approach to the study of worker values and some preliminary results. Orlando, FL: Paper presented at the Southern Management Association. Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in LISREL: Examination and

illustration of available procedures.Organizational Research Methods,4, 324–360.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M. (2002). A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior,23, 927–946.

Crandall, J. E. (1975). A scale of social interest.Journal of Individual Psychology,31, 187–195.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of

Management,31, 874–900.

Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors.Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 160–169. Cropanzano, R. Stein, J. & Goldman B. (Eds.). (in press).Self-interest. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crowne, J. E., & Marlowe, D. (1964).The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York, NY: Wiley. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.JSAS Catalog of Selected

Documents in Psychology,10, 85.

Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism.Nature,425, 785–791.

Fossum, J. A. (1992).Labor relations: Development, structure, process. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at

work-organizational spontaneity relationship.Psychological Bulletin,112, 310–327.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980).Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Hicks, L. E. (1970). Some properties of ipsative, normative, and forced-choice normative measures.Psychological

Bulletin,74, 167–184.

Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A field quasi-experiment.Journal of Applied Psychology,85, 822–828.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966).The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment.Annual Review of Psychology,57, 1–26.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange.Academy of Management

Journal,37, 656–669.

Korsgaard, M. A., & Meglino, B. M. (in press). Beyond the calculating self: The role of other orientation in organizational behavior. In H. Wayment, & J. Bauer (Eds.),The quiet ego: Research and theory on the benefits of transcending egoistic self-interest. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Korsgaard, M. A., Meglino, B. M., & Lester, S. W. (1996). The effect of other-oriented values on decision making: A test of propositions of a theory of concern for others in organizations.Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes,68, 234–245.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 52–65.

Magjuka, R. J., & Baldwin, T. T. (1991). Team-based employee involvement programs: Effects of design and administration.Personnel Psychology,44, 793–812.

Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness.Academy of Management Journal,35, 828–847.

McNeely, B. L. (1992). An investigation of prosocial organizational behavior: A field study. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.

McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836–844.

Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2004). Considering rational self-interest as a disposition: Organizational implications of other orientation.Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 946–959.

Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest.American Psychologist,54, 1053–1060.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior(Vol. 12, pp. 43–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of

organizational citizenship behavior.Personnel Psychology,48, 775–802.

Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., Presaghi, F., & Ercolani, A. P. (2003). The personal norm of reciprocity.European

Journal of Personality,17, 251–283.

Podsakoff, P. M., Aherne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,82, 262–270.

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, 513–563.

Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987a). Effect of values on perception and decision making: A study of alternative work values measures.Journal of Applied Psychology,72, 666–673.

Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987b). Issues in work values measurement. In W. C. Frederick (Ed.),Research in

corporate social performance and policy(Vol. 9, pp. 153–183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939).Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management.Industrial Management

Review,9, 1.

Simon, H. A. (1990). A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism.Science,250, 1665–1668. Simon, H. A. (1993). Altruism and economics.American Economic Review,83, 156–161.

Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes.Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,89, 845–851.