 

 

b5,
.4
3‘.
H u

z:
’8:
‘u‘d

\.. . ..

E‘. «x
1&4

Z‘ﬁlﬁ
55.2115:
3:11....
I71VVI
$115:
1‘1
51

v.5...)
p 15:11.1.
:. :Nni
r136.

 

llBRARY ‘7
[Michigan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

PERSONAL AND RELATIONAL WELL-BEING OUTCOMES
OF INTERPERSONALLY-DIRECTED ORGANIZATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

presented by

David T. Wagner

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Organizational Behavior/Human

 

Resource Management

M

Major Professor’s Signature
é // 9/0 9

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:/Proilec&PrelelRC/DateDue.indd

PERSONAL AND RELATIONAL WELL-BEING OUTCOMES OF
INTERPERSONALLY—DIRECTED ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

By

David T. Wagner

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Organizational Behavior/Human Resource Management

2009

ABSTRACT

PERSONAL AND RELATIONAL WELL-BEING OUTCOMES OF
INTERPERSONALLY-DIRECTED ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

By

David T. Wagner

Research on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has received considerable
attention over the past several decades. Most of the research on the outcomes of OCB has
addressed the impact that these behaviors have on organizational performance and on
employee rewards and performance evaluations. However, almost no research has
considered how extending help to coworkers inﬂuences an employee’s personal well-
being. This dissertation addresses this gap in the literature, drawing from self—
determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) to investigate how employees’
interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors (OCBI) inﬂuence personal well-being as
mediated by the fulﬁllment of employee needs for relatedness, autonomy, and
competence. This dissertation also builds upon social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to
examine how citizenship behaviors directed toward coworkers inﬂuence an employee’s
relational well-being, and speciﬁcally coworker exchange relationships. I propose, and
ﬁnd, that the inﬂuence of helping on relational well-being is mediated by coworker liking
of and trust in the employee performing OCBI. Finally, I examine how employee
motives, and coworker perceptions of employee motives, inﬂuence the relationships
between OCBI and the various forms of well-being. Findings from a two-stage ﬁeld
study, with participants from nine different organizations offer mixed support for the

hypothesized relationships. In general, the relationship between interpersonally-directed

citizenship behaviors and personal well-being is not observed in the data. However, the
relationship between OCBI and relational well-being received considerable support. I
conclude by discussing the implications of my findings for theory, practice, and future

citizenship behavior research.

To Jessie, Noah and Gage—this accomplishment is as much yours as it is mine.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Completing a doctoral program and a dissertation is a demanding task and I could not
have succeeded without the help of many people. First off, I thank my dissertation
advisor, Remus Ilies, for his guidance, support and candor over these many years. I thank
my collaborators and committee members, Linn Van Dyne, Fred Morgeson, and John
Hollenbeck for teaching me the skills of good scholarship, for holding this dissertation to
a high standard, and for providing insight to contribute to its rigor. I thank my cohort
mates, Chris Barnes, Jennifer Nahrgang, and Kelly Wilson, for their camaraderie,
commiseration, and collaboration. I thank Sue Polhamus for consistently keeping me on
the track to completion and compliance. I thank Matthias Spitzmuller for discussing ideas
and for getting me out on the football pitch between writing and data collection. Finally, I
thank my wonderful wife, Jessie, and my two boys, Noah and Gage, for giving me the
time and space to accomplish this feat and for reenergizing me through conversations,

bike rides, and wrestling matches.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... VIII
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... IX
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................. 6
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR ..................................................................... 6
OCB and Personal Rewards ........................................................................................ 6
OCB and Personal Well-Being ................................................................................... 9
OCB and Relational Well-Being .............................................................................. 11
OCB and Motives ..................................................................................................... 13
Additional Predictors and Outcomes of Citizenship Behaviors ............................... 20
NEED THEORIES ............................................................................................................. 22
Early Need Theories ................................................................................................. 22
Self-Determination Theory ....................................................................................... 23
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY .......................................................................................... 26
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 32
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS AND PERSONAL WELL-BEING ................................................ 32
Mechanisms Connecting Citizenship Behaviors and Personal Well-Being ............. 35
Moderated Relationships among Citizenship, Need Fulﬁllment, and Personal Well-
Being ......................................................................................................................... 41
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS AND RELATIONAL WELL-BEING ............................................ 49
Mechanisms Connecting Citizenship Behaviors and Relational Well-Being ........... 52
Moderated Relationships among Citizenship, Trust, Liking, and Relational Well-
Being ......................................................................................................................... 56
METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 65
RESEARCH SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................ 65
PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................... 68
MEASUREMENT .............................................................................................................. 70
Measures Testing Relationship between Citizenship and Personal Well—Being ...... 70

Measures Testing Relationship between Citizenship and Relational Well-Being... 74

ANALYSES AND RESULTS .......................................................................................... 77

vi

REI

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSES ............................................................................. 77

PERSONAL WELL-BEING ANALYSES .............................................................................. 79
PERSONAL WELL—BEING RESULTS ................................................................................. 80
RELATIONAL WELL-BEING ANALYSES .......................................................................... 92
RELATIONAL WELL-BEING RESULTS ............................................................................. 95
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 1 12
DISCUSSION FOR PERSONAL WELL-BEING MODEL ...................................................... 1 12
DISCUSSION FOR RELATIONAL WELL-BEING MODEL .................................................. 1 18
IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 120
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................................ 128
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ l 34
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 136
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES ................................................................... 137
APPENDIX B: SURVEY MEASURES USED IN FIELD STUDY ........................................... 139
Employee-Rated Time 1 ......................................................................................... 139
Opportunities for interaction ............................................................................... 139
Motives for OCB ................................................................................................. 139
Fulﬁllment of Need for Relatedness ................................................................... 140
Fulﬁllment of Need for Competence .................................................................. 140
Fulﬁllment of Need for Autonomy ..................................................................... 140
Coworker-Rated Time 1 ......................................................................................... 141
Interpersonally directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCBI) ................ 141
Motives for OCB ................................................................................................. 141

Trust .................................................................................................................... 142

Liking .................................................................................................................. 142
Employee-Rated Time 2 ......................................................................................... 143
Positive Affect and Negative Affect ................................................................... 143

Job Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 143
Coworker-Rated Time 2 ......................................................................................... 144
Coworker Exchange ............................................................................................ 144
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 146

vii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSES ...................................................................... 78
TABLE 2. CORRELA TIONS AMONG ALL STUDY VARIABLES .................................................... 81

TABLE 3. REGRESSION OF POSITIVE AFFECT ON INTERPERSONALL Y-DIRECTED CITIZENSHIP
BEHA VIORS (OCBI) AND MEDIATORS .......................................................................... 82

TABLE 4. REGRESSION OF JOB SATISFACTION 0N INTERPERSONALL Y—DIRECTED CITIZENSHIP
BEHA VIORS (OCBI) AND MEDIA TORS .......................................................................... 83

TABLE 5. REGRESSION 0F NEGATIVE AFFECT 0N INTERPERSONALLY—DIRECTED CITIZENSHIP

BEHA VIORS (OCBI) AND MEDIA TORS .......................................................................... 83
TABLE 6. REGRESSION 0F RELATEDNESS ON OCBI AND MOTIVES FOR HELPING .................. 85
TABLE 7. REGRESSION OF A UTONOMY 0N OCBI AND M OTIVES FOR HELPING ...................... 85
TABLE 8. REGRESSION 0F COMPETENCE ON OCBI AND MOTIVES FOR HELPING .................. 86
TABLE 9. REGRESSION 0F PC SITIVE AFFECT 0N OCBI AND MOTIVES FOR HELPING ............ 87
TABLE 10. REGRESSION 0F JOB SATISFACTION ON OCBI AND MOTIVES FOR HELPING ......... 88
TABLE 1 l. REGRESSION 0F NEGATIVE AFFECT 0N OCBI AND MOTIVES FOR HELPING ......... 88
TABLE 12. EXAMPLE DA TA STRUCTURE FOR LEVEL-I HLM DA TA FILE ............................... 93

TABLE 13. CORRELA TIONS AMONG VARIABLES IN THE RELATIONAL WELL-BEING PORTION OF
THE MODEL ................................................................................................................ 96

TABLE 14. REGRESSION 0F C0 WORKER EXCHANGE ( CWX) 0N HELPING AND MOTIVES FOR

HELPING ..................................................................................................................... 97
TABLE 15. REGRESSION OF TRUST 0N HELPING AND MOTIVES FOR HELPING ....................... 98
TABLE 16. REGRESSION 0F LIKING 0N HELPING AND M OTIVES FOR HELPING ...................... 99

TABLE 17. REGRESSION 0F COWORKER EXCHANGE ( C WX) 0N HELPING, M OTIVES FOR
HELPING AND TRUST, INTERPERSONAL COMMITMENT, AND LIKING .............................. 99

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF PERSONAL AND RELA TIONAL WELL-BEING ................... 31

FIGURE 2. M ODERA TING EFFECT OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT M OTIVES ON RELA TIONSHIP
BETWEEN INTERPERSONALL Y-DIRECTED CITIZENSHIP BEHA VIORS AND FULFILLMENT OF
THE NEED FOR RELA TEDNESS ...................................................................................... 91

FIGURE 3. M ODERA TING EFFECT OF PROSOCIAL VALUE M OTIVES 0N RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
INTERPERSONALL Y-DIRECTED CITIZENSHIP BEHA VIORS AND CO WORKER EXCHANGE. 101

FIGURE 4. M ODERA TING EFFECT OF PROSOCIAL VALUE M OTIVES ON THE RELA TIONSHIP
BETWEEN OCBI AND TRUST ...................................................................................... 102

FIGURE 5. MODERA TING EFFECT OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT M OTIVES ON THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OCBI AND TRUST ............................................................... 104

FIGURE 6. M ODERA TING EFFECT OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT M OTIVES ON THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OCBI AND LIKING .............................................................. 104

FIGURE 7. MODERA TING EFFECT OF PROSOCIAL VALUE M OTIVES 0N DIRECT EFFECT
BETWEEN CITIZENSHIP AND CO WORKER EXCHANGE ................................................... 107

FIGURE 8. TOTAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITIZENSHIP AND CO WORKER EXCHANGE AS
MODERATED BY PROSOCIAL VALUE MOTIVES ............................................................ 107

FIGURE 9. MODERA TING EFFECT OF PROSOCIAL VALUE MOTIVES 0N RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
OCBI AND TRUST ..................................................................................................... 108

FIGURE 10. M ODERA TING EFFECT OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT M OTIVES 0N DIRECT
EFFECT OF OCBI ON C WX ....................................................................................... 109

FIGURE 1 1. M ODERA TING EFFECT OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT MOTIVES 0N RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN OCBI AND TRUST ...................................................................................... 110

FIGURE 12. M ODERA TING EFFECT OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT M OTIVES 0N RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN CITIZENSHIP AND CO WORKER LIKING OF THE EMPLOYEE ............................ 1 10

ix

PERSONAL AND RELATIONAL WELL-BEING OUTCOMES OF
INTERPERSONALLY-DIRECTED ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR
Introduction

In response to the disappointing ﬁndings that job satisfaction and job performance
were not meaningfully correlated, Organ (1977) proposed that scholars should turn their
attention to a different form of job performance. This form of performance eventually
came to be called organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Organ, 1988). OCB is
deﬁned as “individual behavior that is discretionary. . .and in the aggregate, promotes the
efﬁcient and effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Since that
time sufﬁcient research has been performed on the antecedents and outcomes of OCB to
justify several meta-analyses (e.g., Borman, Penner, Allen & Motowidlo, 2001; Dalal,
2005; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995;
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

Despite the large amount of research interest which has been performed in this
domain, surprisingly little research has addressed the impact of OCB on the individual
who performs the behavior (Spitzmuller, Van Dyne, & Ilies, 2008). This is a notable
omission in the literature. Subjective well-being, consisting of high positive affect and
satisfaction, and low negative affect (Lucas, Diener, & Sub, 1996), has attracted
increasing interest in the organizational literature; given employee well-being’s impact on
important personal outcomes such as heart disease, (e. g., Anda et al., 1993) and
organizational outcomes such as turnover (e. g., Wright & Bonett, 2007), I suggest that
the gap in our understanding regarding the relationship between OCB and well-being is

an important one to ﬁll.

TIC III

.y-.3.
)Dﬂhﬁ

LIME

3.7131

COm'

Pelsc

Given the value of OCB to organizations, and also noting the lack of research
examining the impact that OCB might have on employee well-being, I intend to
contribute to the literature by answering the following research questions. First, how does
performing OCB inﬂuence personal and relational outcomes for the person performing
the behavior? By personal outcomes, I mean self-focused well-being, such as affective
states and job satisfaction (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000). Relational
outcomes, on the other hand, deal with interpersonal phenomena such as the quality of
employees’ relationships with coworkers (coworker exchange, CWX; Sherony & Green,
2002).

Second, what are the mechanisms that account for the relationship between OCB
and personal and relational well-being? To answer this question I primarily draw from
self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) which suggests that personal well-
being is in part obtained through the fulﬁllment of needs for relatedness, autonomy, and
competence, and also illustrate how the performance of OCB provides employees
opportunities to fulﬁll their needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence. I also draw
from social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to form hypotheses predicting that the
performance of OCB inﬂuences coworkers’ trust in the employee performing the OCB
and coworkers’ liking of the employee. I also illustrate how these coworker attitudes
determine the relationship quality which coworkers have with the employee. I call this
relational well-being, consistent with Ryff and Singer’s (2000) view that positive
relationships are an important facet of overall wellness.

My third research question asks, how do the relationships between OCB and

personal and relational well-being differ based upon employee motives and coworker

ﬁ."”q

L“-

mitt-v
tit-L t.

\\ i

v
Iv '-
“Ale-'-

C0“:

COI‘A.

attributions of the employee’s motives for engaging in OCB? I answer this question by
examining the moderating effects of motives for OCB on the relationships among OCB,
mediators and outcomes, consistent with theory and research on self-concordance. I
suggest that when individuals’ motives are consistent with their behavior they will enjoy
greater personal well-being. In contrast, those who engage in OCB with discordant
motives will experience a sense of dissonance and will therefore enjoy fewer, if any, of
the positive effects that performing OCB has on personal well-being. Likewise, applying
theory on behavioral authenticity (Kernis & Goldman, 2006) to OCB would suggest that
when coworkers perceive an employee as being driven merely to enhance his or her own
image, the coworkers will develop lower levels of trust and liking, resulting in lower
relational well-being for the employee than would occur if coworkers attributed the
employee’s behaviors to prosocial motives.

Various conceptualizations of OCB exist, most of which build from the premise
that OCB is discretionary behavior that beneﬁts the organization. One of the early
conceptualizations of OCB identiﬁed ﬁve categories of behaviors, including altruism,
conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (Organ, 1988). Shortly
thereafter, Williams and Anderson (1991) suggested that these ﬁve categories can be
meaningfully grouped together on the basis of the target of the behaviors, including
citizenship behaviors that are primarily directed at other individuals (OCBI, consisting of
altruism and courtesy), and those that are primarily directed towards the organization as a
whole (OCBO, consisting of conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue).
Because I am interested in the social impact of OCB in the workplace, I speciﬁcally

examine citizenship behaviors directed at individuals in the workplace (OCBI). In doing

0': '

~-.-
5

3).:-

per.

I341

m0:

so I use the deﬁnition provided by Williams and Anderson of OCBI as behaviors
designed to “immediately beneﬁt speciﬁc individuals and indirectly through this means
contribute to the organization (e. g., helps others who have been absent, takes a personal
interest in other employees)” (p. 602). Although OCB directed at both individuals and
organizations have been shown to be beneﬁcial, the social nature of my research
questions suggests that a focus on interpersonal OCB will provide the most ﬁtting
examination of the relationships proposed in this paper. Furthermore, OCBI are behaviors
that are intended to benefit speciﬁc individuals, and I thus focus on the behaviors and not
on the performance outcome or the effectiveness of the behaviors.

In order to answer my research questions, I ﬁrst present a review of the literature
pertinent to my research questions. Second, I develop a model describing the
relationships between OCBI and both personal and relational well-being, offering
speciﬁc hypotheses. Third, I empirically test these hypotheses utilizing ﬁeld data
obtained from employees and coworkers in various for-proﬁt business organizations.
Fourth, I discuss the implications of my ﬁndings for management theory and research, as
well as the implications of these ﬁndings for employees and business organizations.

The major contribution of this study is ﬁrst, to Show the personal and relational
beneﬁts which employees derive from performing OCBI. The second contribution is to
empirically test, in a work setting, the general proposition that performing OCBI when
motives are attributed to prosocial, rather than impression managing reasons, will have
differential effects on well-being outcomes. The ﬁndings from these examinations
present scholars with a point of departure for a promising area of research, which relates

to the recent increase in interest regarding positive organizational scholarship in general

(Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003) and employee well-being in particular (Barsade,
Brief, & Spataro, 2003). Findings also present practitioners with a basis for designing the
workplace such that employees have opportunities to interact with, and the discretion to

informally assist, one another in their work.

Literature Review
Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Research on organizational citizenship behavior has enjoyed a long and fruitful
history. For the past several decades scholars have investigated what predicts citizenship
behavior. This research has suggested that citizenship is due to many factors, including
dispositions (Ilies, Fulrner, Spitzmuller, & Johnson, in press; Organ & Ryan, 1995),
contextual factors such as leader support (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), and job attitudes
such as satisfaction (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Ilies et al., in press).

Perhaps the reason for the interest in the predictors of OCB was the commonly
held notion that organizational citizenship behaviors contribute to organizational
performance. In fact, this assertion is deﬁnitional to the construct, as Organ states that
citizenship behaviors are discretionary behaviors that contribute to the overall functioning
of the organization (Organ, 1988). Although critical to organizational success (Katz,
1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978), recent interest has seemed to turn to the personal beneﬁts of
performing organizational citizenship behaviors.

OCB and Personal Rewards

In this section I present a review of research that illustrates how the performance
of OCB results in work-related rewards for the employee performing the OCB. In a three
by two experimental design, Werner (1994) found that hypothetical employees who
performed high, rather than neutral, levels of extra-role behaviors were rated more
favorably, even when these ratings also considered in-role performance. In other words,
the 116 actual supervisors rated the hypothetical employees based on both their in-role

performance and their extra-role performance. Interestingly, those ﬁctitious employees

who were rated high on citizenship behaviors showed higher halo effects, suggesting that
OCB has pervasive effects on supervisor judgments of performance.

Orr, Sackett, and Mercer (1989) examined a similar phenomenon, using a policy
capturing approach to evaluate the extent to which citizenship and non-citizenship
behaviors accounted for the explained variance in the value of allocated dollar rewards
given by 17 supervisors. The ﬁndings of Orr et a1. indicate that actual supervisors
assigned reward amounts to 50 fictitious employees on the basis of 13 performance
ratings, three of which were citizenship behaviors. On average, 68% of the dollar amount
of the rewards allocated by these supervisors was explained by non-citizenship behaviors,
and 13% was explained by citizenship behaviors. This suggests that both in-role and
extra-role behaviors play a part in determining the rewards that employees obtain from
work.

Allen and Rush (1998) ﬁnd similar results in both a lab and a ﬁeld study. They
obtained ratings of 148 subordinates from 80 managers. The responses indicate that
supervisors gave more favorable evaluations and higher reward recommendations for
employees who performed more OCB. In order to control for the possible interference
which non-citizenship performance might have had on supervisor ratings of employee
performance, Allen and Rush performed a follow-up lab study, in which in-role and
citizenship behaviors were manipulated. They created sixteen cells, with high or low on
in-role behavior and citizenship behavior, and any one of four different ﬁlmed
instructors. Undergraduate students then rated the performance of the ﬁlmed instructors
in the different conditions. Findings from the lab study corroborate with the ﬁeld ﬁnding

that OCBS are positively related to both performance ratings (r = .26, p < .01) and reward

recommendations (r = .37, p < .01), independent of task performance. Moreover, the
raters felt a higher degree of liking for instructors showing higher levels of OCB (r = .49,
p < .01) and that those instructors showing high levels of OCB were more affectively
committed to the organization (r = .68, p < .01). These ﬁndings have implication for the
development of my hypotheses that employees who extend help to their coworkers by
performing OCB will come to be more liked, and will thus gain greater levels of
relational well-being.

Hui, Lam, and Law (2000) performed a longitudinal ﬁeld experiment in which
they examined the citizenship behaviors of 293 bank tellers who were approaching their
ﬁrst opportunity for promotion. These scholars found considerable variance in the
citizenship behaviors performed by the bank tellers, and that those who were eventually
selected for promotion to a supervisory role performed more pre-promotion citizenship
behaviors than did tellers who were not promoted. This research supports the notion that
performing OCB results in favorable rewards to the individual performing them.

Likewise, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Fetter (1993) found that managers attended
to both objective performance and citizenship behaviors when evaluating subordinates.’
effectiveness, and Ferris, Judge, Rowland, and Fitzgibbons (1994) found that employee
citizenship behaviors are positively related to the extent to which managers rate the
employees as better and more committed performers.

Based on the literature described above, it is rather clear that performing OCB
tends to result in favorable reward outcomes for the employee performing the OCB.
These rewards include promotion, salary, and bonus recommendations in both ﬁeld and

lab settings. Some evidence also suggests that performing OCB is related to an

employee’s relationship with his or her supervisor (see Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson,
2007, regarding the relationship between leader-member exchange [LMX] and OCB), as
might be expected on the basis of LMX theory’s role-taking and role-making stages in
which the employee enhances his or her position and relationship with the supervisor by
going above and beyond what is formally required by the job.
OCB and Personal Well-Being

Although there has been a substantial amount of research investigating how OCBS
inﬂuence supervisor ratings of employee performance, and supervisor reward decisions,
there has been much less research on the impact that OCBS have on the personal well-
being of the employee who performs them. By personal well-being I mean well-being
typically described as subjective well-being, which includes facets such as high positive
affect, low negative affect, and high job satisfaction. I add the distinction of personal
well-being because, as noted, this dissertation also addresses relational aspects of well-
being, consistent with Ryff’ s (1995) six-component conceptualization of well-being.

Although few studies have addressed personal well-being as an outcome of
OCBS, a handful of notable exceptions are worth discussing. In one of the ﬁrst studies to
empirically examine the determinants of OCB in organizations, Bateman and Organ
(1983) tested the relationship between job satisfaction and citizenship behaviors one to
two months later. The motivation behind the study was to offer an explanation for the
weak relationship between job satisfaction and job performance, by connecting job
satisfaction to contextual or extra-role performance. Bateman and Organ found that job
satisfaction at time 1 had a bivariate correlation with citizenship behavior at time 2 of r =

.43 (p < .05). However, the relationships between citizenship and job satisfaction lagged

across time were nearly identical whether job satisfaction predicted citizenship or
citizenship predicted job satisfaction. Furthermore, even though the correlations were
strong and signiﬁcant, the relationships were not statistically signiﬁcant when including
job satisfaction and citizenship from the other measurement period as controls, although
this may have been due to the small sample size in the study (N = 77). In the decades
since this early study, sufﬁcient evidence has accumulated to suggest that citizenship
behaviors are indeed related to job satisfaction. Ilies et al. (in press) estimate that the
population correlation coefficient between job satisfaction and citizenship behaviors is p
= .27. Again, it is important to note that, despite the causally suggestive path model in
their paper, the directionality of meta-analytic estimates is reliant upon the underlying
correlations. Therefore, the meta-analysis establishes that job satisfaction and citizenship
behaviors are related, but does not Speak to the direction of causality.

One of the few other studies to investigate the relationship of citizenship
behaviors with subsequent satisfaction was a lab study performed by Park and Van Dyne
(2007). These scholars conducted an experiment in which subjects’ goal orientation was
consistent with the form of citizenship (either voice or compliance), ﬁnding that higher
levels of ﬁt resulted in higher levels of the participant’s satisfaction with his or her
performance on the task. Although Park and Van Dyne’s study has several core
differences from the research questions addressed in this dissertation, it nonetheless
suggests that some relationship exists between citizenship and satisfaction.

Past research, including meta-analyses, illustrates that OCBS and various facets of
personal well-being are correlated, but the inherently correlational nature of this research

does not allow a deﬁnitive statement on the causal direction of these relationships.

10

Therefore, as suggested by other scholars (Spitzmuller et al., 2008), I also note that one
shortcoming of the literature is the failure to illustrate how OCBS inﬂuence the personal
well-being of the employee performing the citizenship behaviors. Despite this clear gap
in the literature, only very recently are scholars beginning to turn their attention toward
ﬁlling this gap (e.g., Spitzmuller & Van Dyne, 2008; Wagner & Van Dyne, 2008). The
theory and empirical support presented in this dissertation address this gap in the
literature by presenting theoretical mechanisms that account for the inﬂuence of OCB on
personal well-being, and then testing these mechanisms in a ﬁeld setting.
OCB and Relational Well-Being

In addition to the research which has addressed the impact of citizenship
behaviors on organizational and reward outcomes, some studies have addressed the
impact which performng such behaviors has on interpersonal relations. That is, beyond
reward or promotion decisions, what relational well-being can employees derive from
their citizenship behaviors? In discussing the implications of their study of intraindividual
ﬂuctuations in citizenship behaviors, Ilies, Scott, and Judge (2006) mention that OCBS
may enhance organizational functioning through their effects on social capital. For
example, Bolino, T urnley, and Bloodgood (2002) argue that the relational aspects of
social capital may be connected to the performance of citizenship behaviors. They
suggest that citizenship behaviors “infuse” employee relationships with positive affect,
which enhances the liking and trust among members of the organization. Because of the
enhanced nature of the relationships in the organization, the organization is more likely to
ﬂourish, thus explaining why OCBS result in increased organizational performance.

Bolino and colleagues suggest that relational social capital is an outcome of citizenship

11

behaviors; they also point out that the relationships are likely reciprocal, with enhanced
relational outcomes leading to higher levels of citizenship behaviors among coworkers.

Related to the conceptual work by Bolino et al. (2002), is a series of studies by
Johnson, Erez, Kiker, and Motowidlo (2002). In two experimental studies in which
college students viewed videos of helpful or unhelpful employees, manipulated
helpfulness was very highly correlated with reward allocations (r = . 79 to .61, both p <
.01). Of note is the ﬁnding from the second study, that the relationship between
helpfulness and reward outcomes was mediated by the extent to which the rater (a
hypothetical manager) liked the hypothetical employee shown in the video. This suggests
that employee citizenship behaviors, and in particular helpfulness, positively relate to
interpersonal liking.

A small scale study (N = 73 dyads) of supervisors and subordinates illustrated the
manner in which employee behaviors are related to leader-supervisor exchange quality.
Wayne and Green (1993) obtained rankings of the extent to which supervisors felt they
could trust or turn to one of their subordinates if the supervisors needed help. Employees
were concurrently asked the extent to which they engage in various behaviors, including
altruistic (citizenship) behaviors. Findings indicate that those employees who were more
prone to exhibit altruistic behaviors were those that the supervisor trusted most and with
whom the supervisor had the highest quality exchange relationship.

Research on the interpersonal outcomes of OCB suggests that those who receive
OCBS tend to like those who perform the citizenship behaviors. Research also suggests
that employees who are more helpful are more likely to have higher quality LMX with

their supervisors than are those employees who are less helpful. Moreover, conceptual

12

work related to social networks suggests that helping might generate relational social
capital, characterized by high levels of liking, trust, and mutual identiﬁcation. The work
in this domain is sufﬁcient to allow arguments that OCBI inﬂuences interpersonal
relationships. However, past studies have not addressed the mechanisms through which
these relationships develop. This dissertation therefore contributes to the literature by
illustrating some of the mechanisms through which OCBI leads to higher quality
relationships among employees, which I have termed “relational well-being.”

OCB and Motives

Research also suggests that the outcomes of OCB are more complex than simple
relationships with external rewards and personal well-being. One of Bolino’s (1999)
major premises was that the performance of OCB would result in the employee being
viewed as a good organizational citizen. It is this perception, he argues, that likely results
in favorable evaluations by supervisors and coworkers. In fact, Bolino’s argument
revolves around the manner in which other members of the organization view the
employee, and how the employee’s citizenship behaviors result in these perceptions. In
particular, he reasons how the perception of various different motives of the employee
(e.g., by a coworker) will inﬂuence the coworker’s perception of the employee as a good
citizen.

In addition to the value of OCBS for performance evaluations and rewards, the
ﬁndings of Allen and Rush (1998) also illustrate the importance of the perceived motives
behind helping. Speciﬁcally, they found that among the ﬁeld sample of supervisors, the
impact of OCB on performance evaluations and reward recommendations was mediated

by the extent to which the supervisor viewed the behaviors as altruistically motivated. In

13

other words, how the behaviors were viewed, led to an attribution to the intent behind the
behavior, and it was this attribution which drove the relationship between OCB and the
supervisor’s evaluation of the employee’s performance.

Empirical research on actual motives or behaviors also supports the notion that
the reasons for helping will inﬂuence reactions to giving and receiving help. For
example, the study by Hui et al. (2000), which assessed levels of citizenship behaviors
before and after promotion decisions, also measured the extent to which each of the bank
tellers felt that performing various citizenship behaviors was instrumental in nature. That
is, the tellers were asked to indicate the extent to which performing each of the items
comprising the OCB scale would help them obtain a favorable promotion outcome.
Results indicate that those who viewed the citizenship behaviors as instrumental were
much more likely to perform citizenship behaviors prior to the promotion decision.
Furthermore, the study found that following the promotion decision, those employees
who had been performing higher levels of OCB than their counterparts actually decreased
in their level of OCB. This suggests that the behaviors of many of the employees were
driven by their desire to obtain a promotion. Those who received the promotion were
likely to decreases their citizenship behaviors because they had already obtained their
objective, and those who were not promoted may have Stopped performing high levels of
OCB because they felt that there was no reason for doing so, as they had already failed to
obtain the promotion.

Wayne and Green (1993) also contribute to this discussion with their study of
LMX and follower altruistic behaviors. They found that self-rated impression

management behaviors were related to the supervisor’s rating of the exchange

14

relationship. Speciﬁcally, they found that impression management behaviors that were
directed at the supervisor were positively related to the quality of the exchange
relationship (r = .29, p < .05). In contrast, impression management behaviors that were
job-related were negatively related to the quality of the relationship (r = -.24, p < .05).
Although these ﬁndings seem relatively straight forward, I point out that self-ratings of
impression management were made by employees, rather than by supervisors or
coworkers. Therefore, the study by Wayne and Green does not address the manner in
which coworker perceptions of employee behaviors inﬂuence relationships, but rather
how the employee’s perception of behaviors inﬂuences relationships.

In a considerably larger study of industrial sales teams, Strutton and Pelton (1998)
examined the relationship between ingratiatory behaviors and lateral relationship quality
(i.e., relationships with peer salespeople). These scholars used a stratiﬁed random
sampling procedure to identify 500 industrial organizations that typically use team
selling. From this sample they obtained analyzable responses from representatives in 251
of these organizations. Results from the study indicate that salesperson use of ingratiatory
tactics with their team members was positively related to the quality of the interpersonal
attachment to peers in the team, with the ingratiatory tactics explaining over 30% of the
variance (p < .01) in relationship quality. At face value, these ﬁndings suggest that
ingratiatory tactics might actually be beneﬁcial for interpersonal relationships at work.
However, despite the external-validity enhancing beneﬁts of the study’s sampling frame,
the single source measurement calls into question the internal validity of the study. The

contrast between Strutton and Pelton’s ﬁndings, and those of other scholars who have

15

found negative effects of ingratiatory behavior on interpersonal outcomes, calls into
question the role which motives have in determining the outcomes of citizenship.

A potential answer to this question comes from Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor, and Judge
(1995), who suggest that the same set of behaviors could be viewed as either
organizational citizenship behaviors, or as organizational politics, and that the
determining factor is the observer’s perception of the behaviors. Although not explicitly
stated, this notion supports my hypothesis that employees will derive differential beneﬁts
of helping based on how they and their coworkers perceive their motives for doing so.
Empirical support for this notion is presented by Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, and Ensley
(2004), who examine the impact that attributions for behavior have on the relationship
between coworker OCBS and peer job satisfaction. In a ﬁeld sample of 95 employees,
they asked employees to indicate the extent to which their coworkers performed various
citizenship behaviors. They were also asked to indicate to what they attributed these
citizenship behaviors, as well as their level of job satisfaction. Although the ﬁndings are
derived from same-source data, because the relationship of interest is a moderated effect,
the concern that the signiﬁcance of the results was due to same-source bias is minimized
(Evans, 1985). Findings indicate that employees who feel that their coworkers perform
OCBS for self-serving reasons are less satisﬁed with increases in the frequency of these
OCBS. Perhaps this is because the employees are preoccupied with their indebtedness to
the helper. In contrast, when employees viewed the citizenship behaviors of their
coworkers as well-intentioned, they experienced strong increases in their job satisfaction

when the coworkers engaged in higher levels of citizenship behaviors.

16

A series of laboratory studies supports the notion that attributions of helpful
behavior determine how help recipients respond to the behaviors. For example, Goranson
and Berkowitz (1966) found that when help was extended for voluntary, rather than
compulsory, reasons, the help recipient was more likely to be reciprocated in the future.
Likewise, Greenberg and Frisch (1972) found that when a benefactor deliberately
extended a gift or help, the recipient was more likely to reciprocate than when the help
was extended accidentally. Tesser, Gatewood, and Driver (1968) asked subjects to
imagine how they would feel in various scenarios wherein the individual received help
from another person. When the intent behind the help was solely viewed as a beneﬁt to
the receiver, the subject tended to report feeling grateful for the help. In contrast, when
the help recipient was cued to think that the help was provided in order to enhance the
benefactor’s reputation, the help recipient did not experience strong feelings of gratitude.

At a general level, the results just discussed suggest that attributions of motive are
critical determinants of the value of citizenship behaviors. In their second study Johnson
et al. (2002) found that videos of a helpful employee with a bad reputation received
considerably lower reward recommendations than a helpful employee with a good
reputation. From these ﬁndings I presume that the help extended by the employees was
interpreted on the basis of attributions which the help recipient made about the helper’s
motives. If the employee was viewed as acting instrumentally (bad reputation), then the
rewards of helping were small; in contrast, employees with a good reputation, whose
motives were presumably based on prosocial values, tended to receive larger rewards,

even though the employees extended equivalent amounts of help in each condition. These

17

 

ﬂag.
.ssk

“at l
tit:
taco
lo 8:
CtITI’.

LN:

ﬁndings offer rather straightforward, albeit indirect, support for the notion that
attributions of motive matter when reacting to citizenship behaviors at work.

Although reputations (and I suggest, attributions of motive) are important in
determining reward allocations in the study by Johnson et al. (2002), it is nonetheless
important to note that helpfulness was the primary determinant of reward
recommendations, as unhelpful employees had low levels of reward recommendations,
regardless of their reputation (differences between the two unhelpful conditions were not
statistically different from one another, but were Signiﬁcantly different from the helpful
conditions). Regression analyses indicate that much of the effect of reputation,
helpfulness, and their interaction on reward decisions is mediated by the extent to which
the rater liked the individual, and the altruistic motives which the rater attributed to the
employee. These ﬁndings suggest that employee rewards (i.e., monetary reward
recommendations) and relational constructs (e. g., rater liking of employee) are connected
to employee citizenship behaviors or helpfulness, and that these relationships are
contingent upon how the coworker views the behaviors. When behaviors are viewed as
instrumental, ingratiatory, or impression managing, it seems that they might not hold the
same value as if they were viewed as sincere expressions of the employee’s personality or
prosocial motives.

In summary, these ﬁndings suggest that performing ingratiatory behaviors is
damaging to relationships. However, conﬂicting evidence, such as the positive
relationship between other-directed impression management and LMX (Wayne & Green,

1993), suggests that there is more involved than just the employee’s motives. Of

18

t‘I

I}

It;

particular importance for relational well-being could be the extent to which the behaviors
are perceived by coworkers as ingratiatory or impression managing.

The literature relating OCBS to the motives for their performance is encouraging
in the sense that it speciﬁes some of the boundary conditions that regulate the impact of
OCBS on outcomes. However, much of the research has been performed with rewards or
reward recommendations as the primary outcome of interest, with little consideration
given to the interplay of motives and OCBS in predicting well-being. One exception to
this is the study by Tepper et al. (2004), which examined how coworkers reacted to
OCBS performed for ingratiatory or for sincere reasons. However, this study examined
the well-being of the person receiving the help, rather than the well-being of the person
extending the help. Therefore, the small number of studies which have integrated OCB
and motives research highlight an interesting and promising area of research, but the
failure of these studies to address personal well-being, and several components of
relational well—being presents an important area for future research to address. Filling this
gap is one of the primary foci of this dissertation.

The research addressing the outcomes of OCB has rarely taken an explicitly
attributional approach, in which peers have been asked to evaluate the intent behind
helping behaviors. Manipulated laboratory studies have suggested that motives do matter,
but to my knowledge, no studies have taken a field approach examining how others’
attributions of motives for OCB moderate the inﬂuence of citizenship behaviors on the
relational well-being of the helper and how the helper’s motives moderate the inﬂuence
of citizenship behaviors on the personal well-being of the helper. Because of the

importance of interpersonal relationships and networks, and due to the increasingly

19

apparent importance of well-being in organizations, this dissertation presents a useful and
timely investigation of relationships that are pertinent to both businesses and scholars.
Additional Predictors and Outcomes of Citizenship Behaviors

Before continuing with the present research questions, it is important to note that
examining the personal and relational outcomes of OCB does not offer a complete story
of the impact of OCB on individuals and organizations, nor does it completely illustrate
which employees are most likely to receive help. For instance, LePine and Van Dyne
(2001) use attribution theory to develop a model explaining how group members form
attributions about low performers and how these attributions inﬂuence the group
members’ decisions to engage in helping behaviors towards the low performer. When
poor performance is attributed to low ability, then group members are likely to either
compensate for the low performance or to train the low performer, depending on whether
or not the lack of ability is seen as something that stable or as something that might be
malleable. In contrast, when poor performance is attributed to a lack of
conscientiousness, LePine and Van Dyne argue that group members might react with
anger, and eventually either reject the low performer, or motivate the low performer if the
lack of conscientiousness is viewed as a byproduct of the low perforrner’s lack of
experience. What is important to note from this conceptual model, is that how employees
view other coworkers plays a role in how the employees react to low performance by the
coworkers. Speciﬁcally, employee attributions of the causes of coworker performance
will determine whether, and in which ways, the employee will help the coworker.
Although the scope of my study does not encompass the predictors of OCB in

organizations, I suggest that it would be valuable to consider an integrative model in

20

which help-recipient-focused predictors and outcomes of OCB are added to the
mechanisms presented in my model.

To shed some light on some of the potential outcomes of OCB for the help
recipient, I will brieﬂy review recent research which suggests that providing other
members of an organization with help or assistance might prove harmful to that
individual at a later point in time. Barnes, Hollenbeck, Wagner, DeRue, Nahrgang, and
Schwind (2008) performed a two-phase experimental study in which small teams were
engaged in a highly interdependent computer-based task. During the initial phase of the
experiment, some teams were given unequal workloads, such that one member of the
team required high levels of assistance from team members in order to complete his or
her job. The researchers found that during the subsequent phase of the experiment some
of the individuals who had previously received help developed a sense that they were no
longer accountable for their own work, and replaced a sense of accountability for a sense
of dependence on their teammates. The resulting facilitated dependence was observed in
teams where the help recipient had a help advocate; that is, the help recipient had another
member of the team who was able to view the amount of workload that the help recipient
faced. The important takeaway from this research is that extending assistance to
coworkers might present unexpected costs. And although these costs might not be
inunediately visible, over time they could demonstrate a negative effect on those
individuals who receive the assistance. The considerations of who receives help and how
receiving this help affects them is beyond the scope of the present study, but I encourage
researchers to examine characteristics of both helpers and help recipients in future

studies.

21

ILD‘,’
biwl. .

1
.‘3'5'
L’\ .5 b

"vl :3th

C013.

0 ,3
J
th\\

tor a,

‘nIJv.
“in,“

Need Theories

One of the two theoretical bases for my examination of OCB comes from research
on self-determination theory, which deals with basic human needs. Before discussing this
theory, I present a brief review of several other need theories as a backdrop to self-
deterrnination theory.
Early Need Theories

One of these early need theories was presented by Murray (193 8) who suggested
close to twenty needs that are either biological or psychological in nature. These needs
were considered the origin of motivation, as the satisfaction of the various needs was
considered the primary impetus to action. Despite Murray’s extensive list of human
needs, Winter (1996) suggested that three of the needs are most important. These are the
three needs emphasized by McClelland (1961), and include the need for power, the need
for afﬁliation, and the need for achievement. The need for power is satisﬁed by attaining
inﬂuence over others or by gaining prestige; the need for afﬁliation is satisﬁed by
interacting and socializing with other people; the need for achievement is satisﬁed by
meeting and overcoming challenges or by reaching goals. McClelland views these needs
as learned, and argues that individuals have different levels of each of these needs. As
evidence of this, McClelland and Winter (1969) found that training business people to
hold higher need for achievement resulted in greater entrepreneurial success (also see
Harrell & Stahl, 1981). A considerable amount of research has addressed variations in
individual needs and their impact on personal and organizational outcomes (e.g., need for

achievement and business creation and success, Rauch & Frese, 2007).

22

Another approach to human needs was presented by Maslow (1943). This View,
although perhaps most widely known, has not received the same level of research support
as McClelland’s treatment of needs. Maslow suggests that needs exist in a hierarchy, with
basic needs, such as food, water, and sleep, requiring satisfaction before individuals will
pursue higher-level needs such as friendship, achievement, and self-actualization. Despite
the popularity of this theory, an improvement to the theory presents a more useful view of
human needs. Alderfer’s (1969) ERG theory places various levels of Maslow’s hierarchy
into existence, relatedness, or growth categories. Unlike Maslow’s hierarchy, Alderfer
suggests that needs from different levels can be pursued concurrently, and that frustration
at one level does not necessarily result in complete reversion to another level. Rather,
needs in different categories can be pursued at the same time.

Each of the theories of human needs presented has helped advance our
understanding of human motivation. To these theories could be added many others which
have shaped the way scientists think about individual motivation. Recent work has
illustrated the way in which many of these theories overlap with, and draw from, one
another. For example, Baumeister and Leary (1995) argue that the need to belong is
connected to many other needs that have been presented in the literature. For example,
needs for power, achievement, intimacy, approval and afﬁliation are related in various
ways to belongingness in the sense that people prefer achievements that are noticed and
validated by others, rather than achievements that are accomplished in isolation. Needs
for intimacy, approval, and afﬁliation are likewise connected to the need to belong, as
they relate to others in varying manners.

Self-Determination Theory

23

Although the theories just reviewed present various forms of insight to
interpersonally directed citizenship behaviors in the workplace, a different view on
psychological needs will prove enlightening and even more appropriate for answering my
research questions. Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) proposes that
individuals have basic needs to feel competent, autonomous, and related to those around
them. The fulﬁllment of these needs is viewed as psychological nutrition that allows
individuals to ﬂourish (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In describing how these needs are fulﬁlled,
Reis et al. (2000, p. 420) state that “the need for competence is fulfilled by the experience
that one can effectively bring about desired effects and outcomes, the need for autonomy
involves perceiving that one’s activities are endorsed by or congruent with the self, and
the need for relatedness pertains to feeling that one is close and connected to significant
others”

As pointed out by Baumeister and Leary (1995), many of the need theories
discussed above overlap, including self—deterrnination theory. For example, the need for
relatedness is clearly related to the need to belong (which is related to the need for
afﬁliation and the need for intimacy) in the sense that it deals with interactions with other
people. Likewise, the need for competence overlaps with the need for achievement, in the
sense that achieving or reaching goals requires demonstration of some level of
competence. Due to the many commonalities among the various approaches to human
needs, the different approaches might lead to some of the same conclusions. However,
one of the primary research questions behind this study deals with the personal well-
being that employees derive from helping their coworkers. Research on the various need

theories discussed has focused on needs as a driver of action or motivation; recent

24

research on self-determination theory, on the other hand, has focused on well-being as an
outcome of need satisfaction. More importantly, Deci and Ryan argue that the satisfaction
of needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy does not merely provide a driver of
action, but that the provision of these needs is essential for optimal human functioning. In
contrast, other need theories have used differences in need Strength to predict outcomes,
but “in doing so they have not made any implicit assumption that need satisfaction would
be associated with healthier functioning” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 232). Therefore, due to
the growing body of both empirical and conceptual research connecting self-
determination theory, and the fulﬁllment of needs for competence, relatedness, and
autonomy, to well-being outcomes, 1 utilize this theoretical perspective as it is the most
germane approach to needs as an explanation of the relationship between interpersonally-
directed citizenship behaviors and personal well-being at work.

It is worth noting that SDT differs from other need theories in that, although it
recognizes that differences in need strengths exist, it does not focus on individual
differences in these three psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Research based on
SDT primarily focuses on the degree to which different social contexts lead to the
satisfaction of needs and how the degree of need fulﬁllment leads to various
consequences. This approach does not ignore the fact that both situational inﬂuences and
individual differences impact an individual’s reactions to particular events (Mischel &
Shoda, 1995), but instead focuses on the Situational factors that predict individual well-
being. Therefore, in contrast to approaches by Murray or McClelland, which focus on
individuals’ differential levels of needs for power, achievement, and so forth, and

consistent with Deci and Ryan’s view that environmental factors which lead to need

25

fulﬁllment are of central concern, in this paper I examine the environmental factors and
behaviors that inﬂuence need satisfactions, leaving the investigation of differences in
these basic needs, and the interaction between these differences and the characteristics of
the situation, for future study.

Social Exchange Theory

The major theory underlying my conceptual development of the OCBI —
relational well-being relationship is social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Social exchange
theory was introduced in the late 19503 with Homan’s (1958) explanation of social
behavior as exchange, in which he argues that we should view social interaction as “an
exchange of goods, material and non-material” (p. 597). Homans uses the notion of
mutual reinforcement as the basis of what he calls elementary social behavior. He draws
from behavioral psychology, in the tradition of Skinner and others, to outline these
reinforcing properties of social interactions. Much in the same way that a pigeon will be
led to peck at a disk in order to receive food or other reinforcements, an individual is
thought to engage in particular social behaviors or exchanges when those behaviors are
amply rewarded. He suggests that people seek out interactions from which they can
derive proﬁt, with proﬁt representing the difference between the cost incurred by
engaging in the interaction and the beneﬁt obtained from the interaction.

Homans offers many examples of what might be considered a cost. One cost
might be the effort required to engage in the activity. That is, how much physical or
mental energy is required to interact with the other person? This represents one facet of
costs incurred through social interaction. Another cost might include incurring internal

discord by changing one’s opinion to match the opinions of one’s group, as illustrated by

26

the experiment of Gerard (1954). Another set of costs might relate to the social
implications of requests towards others. For example, Blau (1955; referenced by Homans,
1958) described the manner in which federal law enforcement agents interacted when
dealing with difﬁcult problems. Among a group of 16 agents, only a small number were
considered highly competent. Therefore, when agents encountered problems that were
too difﬁcult for them to solve, they would seek consultations with the particularly
competent agents. Although these consultations generally yielded high quality
information, the costs incurred by the requesting agent included an admission of some
level of incompetence. Because of this cost, agents tended to request minimal
consultations from the particularly competent agents, even though they needed additional
assistance. In lieu of seeking valuable expertise of highly competent colleagues, agents
would ask advice from peers with similar levels of competence as themselves,
presumably because doing so resulted in lower costs.

Of course, proﬁt requires not only a cost, but also a reward, and Homans suggests
that the provision of rewards acts as a reinforcement of behaviors. Homans discusses
various types of rewards that individuals might derive from social interactions. One form
of reward could be the “favorable sentiment” or acceptance which one receives from the
group for accepting the popular belief in the group. This form of reward clearly requires
some sort of relationship with important others. From the perspective of this type of
reward, social exchange is entirely interpersonal. However, a different form of reward
highlighted by Homans is the “maintenance of one’s personal integrity” which results
from following a course of action consistent with one’s beliefs, even if the behavior is not

consistent with group or social norms. In contrast to purely interpersonal rewards, this

27

form of reward suggests that social exchange does not operate at the exclusion of the self,
but rather in complement to the self. This suggests that when computing the overall proﬁt
that comes from social exchange, one should consider both the interpersonal and the
personal rewards that are to be compared to the costs of the behavior.

I present this discussion of the costs and beneﬁts of social interactions to illustrate
that social exchange theory is not only applicable at the observable level. That is, social
exchange theory does not merely apply to the physical goods or the services that people
exchange. This theory also addresses the internal costs and beneﬁts that people derive
from social interactions. As demonstrated by Blau’s ( 1955) law enforcement agents,
seeking advice from the person with the most expertise is not always the most proﬁtable
course of action. This is because, even though doing so likely yields better information,
the admission of incompetence is much greater when an expertise differential exists. As
shown in Blau’s study, this internal cost is powerful enough to signiﬁcantly inﬂuence
human behavior.

In addition to the multiple sources of costs related to social interactions, the
various forms of reward also have implications for this study. The importance of these
different forms of reward will become apparent as I develop and present my hypotheses
related to the personal and relational beneﬁts of performing citizenship behaviors.
Speciﬁcally, these different forms of reward and cost will relate to the manner in which
help recipients (coworkers) will view the individual who provides the assistance.
Coworkers who consistently receive help from another employee are likely to view the

employee as competent, thereby resulting in an increased level of trust in the employee.

28

Perhaps the most inﬂuential work on social exchange theory is Blau’s (1964)
discussion of “exchange and power in social life.” Blau’s objective is to develop
knowledge of “the processes of social association. . .that characterize the interpersonal
relations between individuals” (p. 2). In essence, he attempts to understand how and why
people interact, and the implications that these interactions have for social structure as a
whole. Consistent with Homan’s (1958) view, Blau conceptualizes the processes of social
association as “an exchange of activity, tangible or intangible, and more or less rewarding
or costly, between at least two persons” (p. 88). He argues that the exchange of goods and
services is not intended merely for economic reasons, but to establish relationships, such
as bonds of friendship. Interestingly, these exchanges, which sometimes serve to “cement
peer relations” (p. 89), are also used to create a differentiation of status among
individuals. These contrasting purposes suggest that social exchange is a complex
phenomenon, and that its study can provide interesting insight into interpersonal human
behavior.

Again alluding to the relational nature of exchange relationships, Blau notes that
“the signiﬁcance of the social ‘commodities’ exchanged is never perfectly independent of
the interpersonal relation between the exchange partners” (1964, p. 89), and this
interpersonal relationship is continuously inﬂuenced by the exchanges themselves. For
example, with repeated small exchanges, two individuals who offer gifts or services and
then receive gifts or services in exchange develop an increasing level of trust between
them. This trust seems to be an outcome of the exchange relationship, but as the
relationship matures, this trust will also mature and become an important antecedent to

future exchanges. In this way social exchange theory allows an exploration of how

interpersonal behaviors inﬂuence the characteristics of relationships and how these
relationships develop across time.

This short review of social exchange theory will serve as background for the
arguments to be presented in this dissertation. The theory will be further described as it is
particularly relevant to the speciﬁc hypotheses I present later in the paper. Figure 1
presents a summary of the hypothesized relationships which I predict and test in this
study. I present speciﬁc hypotheses and the conceptual and empirical support for these

hypotheses in the next section.

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ 9.3.. T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EoEommcuE :oﬁwoﬁE.
mo:_a> 30895
69:22 no 2255.32

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

926. 3556
Coioioo
384.25
.2233: / as: L/
movazz< LoxLoBoo
F 3:209:00 .5.
833 o>=amoz \ ho omcom
>EocoS<

cozoﬁmzmw
non.

 

 

 

«our:
0>Emoa

 

 

 

239:6;
.2520."—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ Co macaw

 

 

moo—632$.
“.0 35¢

 

_..

 

3.5m 3&0...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wﬁmmémi Beouﬁuz BB Egret? ~35: 3338on .~ 333%

 

EoEommcaE :oﬁmoEE.
mo:_m> _a_oomo.n_
"Dogﬁs—

 

 

31

‘-t‘

§A\
P‘ .
A?
D

I"
“I,

‘llli-
ML.

ha
1’ .p
I

‘Illy

I- I”
. “AL I

Hypothesis Development
Citizenship Behaviors and Personal Well-Being

Research on OCB has a rich history in organizational research. And despite the
many years of attention that have been paid to this phenomenon, to date there has been
very little research assessing the impact that these behaviors have on the employee
performing them. As discussed by Spitzmuller et al. (2008), an understanding of how
various forms of helping (OCBI, OCBO) inﬂuence the helper represents a rich area for
future research.

Although sparse in the organizational domain, there have been a handful of
studies on the personal outcomes gained from helping in social psychology. These studies
typically refer to social support and have examined how helping others, whether it be
through volunteering (Thoits & Hewitt, 2001), assisting an elderly Spouse (Brown, Nesse,
Vinolcur, & Smith, 2003), or caring for a sick partner (Kleiboer, Kuijer, Hox, Schreurs, &
Bensing, 2006), inﬂuences both the help recipient and the helper. Many of these studies
are longitudinal in nature often utilizing panel data from secondary data sources. The
studies have examined how social support inﬂuences spousal mortality (Brown et al.,
2003), health and satisfaction among elderly couples (Liena, Krause, & Bennett, 2001),
role performance, adaptability, and well-being among terminally ill subjects (Schwartz &
Sendor, 1999), and well-being among volunteers (Thoits & Hewitt, 2001).

Despite this attention in the social psychology literature, Spitzmuller et al. (2008)
point out that there has been very little research examining the impact that helping has on
the helper. And there has been even less research on the helper-relevant outcomes of

helping at work. For example, they note that only two published studies have examined

32

..

‘ 0
. .v‘
she “‘3.
u

Oﬂﬁlx

one Is

18min
II All 5|
t‘tenm
ihf p0~
PM If
I'll Ih

OICOHI

e310110:

the inﬂuence of helping on the helper’s job satisfaction judgments (Bateman & Organ,
1983; Park & Van Dyne, 2006). Because many organizations rely quite heavily on
interpersonal interaction, and given the meaningful impact of helping behaviors on
beneﬁciaries of helping, it seems reasonable that a focused examination of the impact of
helping in organizations and its implications for the helper can offer valuable insight for
organizational scholars.

Helping other people could be expected to beneﬁt the helper for various reasons.
The ﬁrst reason is that helping indicates that the helper has excess resources which enable
him or her to assist a coworker. The ability to perform one’s own work, yet still have
enough energy, time, intellectual, and physical resources to help a coworker suggests that
one is capable at his or her work. Therefore, from a social psychological perspective, that
one is capable enough to perform his or her own work and then have excess resources to
help a coworker signals to the help recipient, as well as other coworkers, that the
employee is particularly adept at the job. A 14-day experience sampling study by
Kleiboer et al. (2006) found that in couples where one spouse had been diagnosed with a
terminal illness (Multiple Sclerosis), the extent to which partners provided one another
with support during the day was positively related to self-ratings of self-esteem in the
evening. Even more interesting is that when the sick spouse provided emotional support,
the positive relationship with self-esteem was particularly strong. Perhaps this is because
providing the healthy spouse with emotional support, when the spouse is learning to deal
with the heavy burden of having a sick spouse, provides the sick spouse with some sense
of control over the situation. Likewise, the fact that the sick spouse has the energy to

emotionally support his or her spouse might act as a signal to the individual that he or she

33

is still capable and that the disease has not completely overrun his or her physical
capabilities.

In the organizational context, I expect that individuals who help their coworkers
will feel an increase in positive emotions and job evaluations, as providing help that
extends beyond the employee’s job description will signal that the employee is not only
capable of performing his or her own job, but is also assisting coworkers with their jobs.
As discussed in the opening sections of this dissertation, past organizational research has
been noticeably quiet regarding the relationship that performing citizenship behaviors
might have on personal well-being. The few studies which have included temporally
separated measures, with measures of citizenship being obtained before the well-being
outcomes, include an early study by Bateman and Organ (1983) in which they found a
moderately strong relationship between OCB at time 1 and job satisfaction at time 2 (r =
.39, p < .01). However, when controlling for job satisfaction at time 1 and OCB at time 2
the path between OCB (time 1) and job satisfaction (time 2) was not signiﬁcant. A Study
by Park and Van Dyne (2007) also found that forms of OCB in a laboratory experiment
were related to task satisfaction when the type of OCB ﬁt the type of goal that was
primed. Although there is little research on the directional effects that might be present
between OCBS and personal well-being outcomes, meta-analytic estimates indicate that
the constructs are at least correlated. For example, Ilies et al. (in press) ﬁnd that the
estimated true score correlation between job satisfaction and interpersonally-directed
OCB was p = .27. With regard to other facets of well-being, positive affect has also been
empirically connected to the performance of OCBS. Williams and Shiaw (1999)

examined how the experience of positive mood related to the intent to perform future

34

pent"

ll} :1

”all

OCBS, ﬁnding a strong correlation between recent positive affect and intent for future
OCBS. And more importantly for my research questions, they found that “historical
OCB” or reports of past OCB measured with Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1989)
measure of OCB were also related to current positive affect (r = .33, p < .01). Despite this
encouraging ﬁnding, the major shortcoming is that the measures were obtained from the
same source, and thus might suffer from same source bias. Their results must therefore be
interpreted with caution.

Therefore, drawing from past social psychology research on volunteering and on
helping sick individuals, and drawing from the small amount of research measuring both
OCB and well-being constructs, I suggest that performing OCB will be related to the

personal well-being of the person performing the OCB.

Hypothesis 1: Interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors will be
related to employee personal well-being, demonstrating a positive relationship
with (a) positive affect and (b) job satisfaction, and a negative relationship with

(c) negative affect.

Mechanisms Connecting Citizenship Behaviors and Personal Well-Being

Having presented hypotheses regarding the relationship between OCB and
personal well-being, I now turn to the mechanisms that might explain some of this effect.
As discussed earlier in the paper, various need theories attempt to explain human action
and motivation. However, one of the more recent need theories also places considerable

emphasis on how the fulfillment of needs relates to well-being outcomes. Self—

35

determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) proposes that individuals have innate needs to
feel competent, autonomous, and related to those around them. The theory argues that
people tend to have a desire to be self-determining and make their own decisions. It also
suggests that the fulﬁllment of the three basic needs identiﬁed by the theory is viewed as
psychological nutrition that allows individuals to ﬂourish (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Because
citizenship behaviors are discretionary, employees who engage in them are likely to feel
autonomous in doing so, suggesting that these employees’ needs to act autonomously will
be fulfilled. Another aspect of OCB, and particularly interpersonally directed OCB, is
that the employee performs a task or provides assistance with something that is
particularly difﬁcult for a coworker. In this sense, performing OCBI would be expected
to fulﬁll part of the employee’s need for competence, because he or She is able to do
something that a coworker ﬁnds difﬁcult, thereby emphasizing the employee’s ability.
And ﬁnally, engaging in interpersonally-directed OCB will typically entail interaction
with other individuals in the workplace, providing employees with greater opportunities
to experience interpersonal relatedness at work. Therefore, the provision of OCBI should
be related to the extent to which employees experience the fulﬁllment of their basic needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Given the rationale connecting OCBI to the fulﬁllment of basic psychological
needs, I now address the manner in which the fulﬁllment of these needs inﬂuences
personal well-being. Studies of the relationship between need fulﬁllment and individual
well-being have yielded rather consistent results. Sheldon, Ryan, and Reis (1996)
performed a study examining the relationships between the satisfaction of individuals’

needs for competence and autonomy, and the individuals’ well-being, including positive

36

affect, negative affect, vitality, and symptomatology. They found that autonomy,
measured as the extent to which they tend to do what they choose, demonstrated zero-
order correlations with various facets of well-being ranging in absolute magnitude from r
= .18 to r = .34, and correlated r = .36 (p < .01) with a composite measure of well-being.
Competence, operationalized as the individual’s perception that he or she is able to
master new tasks, learn quickly, perform well, and view oneself as effective, had zero—
order correlations with these same outcomes in the range from r = .15 to r = .33, and r =
.30 (p < .01) with the composite measure. Although some of the facets of well-being were
not statistically signiﬁcantly correlated with the trait measures of competence and
autonomy, the study had a small sample Size (N = 60), and all of the relationships were in
the direction hypothesized in their model.

Not only did Sheldon and colleagues (Sheldon et al., 1996) ﬁnd that well-being
was related to between-person differences in competence and autonomy, but that
ﬂuctuations in an individual’s sense that he or she is competent or autonomous from day
to day signiﬁcantly predicts the individual’s daily ﬂuctuations in well—being. During each
day of a two-week diary study, these researchers asked participants to indicate the three
activities in which they spent the most time that day. They were then asked to indicate
how effective they felt in each of the activities, and the reason why they engaged in the
activity. Responses to the items measuring these responses were averaged to daily
competence and autonomy scores, which were then used as predictors of daily levels of
well-being (again including positive affect, negative affect, vitality, and
symptomatology). The results from this study indicate that even after controlling for trait

levels of competence and autonomy, the daily ﬂuctuations in experienced competence

37

and autonomy predicted daily ﬂuctuations in well-being with competence emerging as a
stronger predictor (,8 = .31, p < .01) than autonomy ()8 = .15, p < .01).

A similar diary-study was performed by Reis et al. (2000). These researchers
examined the extent to which competence and autonomy are related to the well-being
outcomes investigated by Sheldon et al. (1996). Their ﬁndings are likewise supportive of
the notion that daily fulﬁllment of needs for competence and autonomy are related to
daily ﬂuctuations in well-being. Furthermore, these scholars investigated the extent to
which daily ﬂuctuations in relatedness, “the feeling that one is close and connected to”
others (p. 420), inﬂuenced daily well-being. Results indicate that the fulﬁllment of the
need for relatedness signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced the composite measure of well-being.
Interestingly, relatedness was a signiﬁcant predictor of the positive facets of well-being
(positive affect, vitality) but not the negative facets of well-being (negative affect,
symptomatology).

Although these studies offer rather consistent support for the relationship between
the fulﬁllment of needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness and individual well-
being, the studies suffer from various limitations. First, the studies by Reis et al. (2000)
and Sheldon et al. (1996) both used student samples. Although the needs investigated are
thought to be universal (Ryan & Deci, 2000), the sample selection still brings up
questions of generalizability. This is particularly important to address when considering
the role that need fulﬁllment might play in the relationship between organizational
citizenship behaviors and well-being outcomes. Another limitation of the research by
Reis et al. is that their daily measures of need fulﬁllment were obtained on the same

questionnaire as the measures of well-being. This presents the threat that the signiﬁcant

38

Or

results could be due to common source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003).

A recent study by Wagner, Ilies, Wilson, DeRue, Johnson, and Ilgen (2008) has
addressed both of these shortcomings in showing how the fulﬁllment of needs for
competence and autonomy is related to subsequent well-being (positive affect, job
satisfaction). First, Wagner and colleagues utilized a ﬁeld sample to test their conceptual
model. One requirement of participation in the study was that participants be employed
full time, and that they answer the need fulﬁllment items while at work. The study was
designed such that the 114 participants were beeped by a handheld computer at three
times randomly allocated throughout the day. On these measurement occasions, the
participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they felt competent and
autonomous in the activity in which they were currently engaged. These 3 measures were
averaged to obtain a daily average of how competent and autonomous the individual had
felt that day. Before leaving work at the end of each of the 10 workdays included in the
study the employee responded to a web-based survey assessing the employee’s level of
job satisfaction and positive affect for the day. Their results indicate that an employee’s
average sense of competence and autonomy for the day signiﬁcantly predict positive
affect (,8 = .09, p < .05 and ,8 = .11, p < .05, respectively) and job satisfaction ([3 = .14, p <
.01 and ,6 = .20, p < .01, respectively) at the end of the day. In sum, the ﬁndings of
Wagner et al. corroborate with past research on the beneﬁts of the fulﬁllment of needs for
competence and autonomy (and relatedness), yet do so through a more rigorous design
which rules out the concern that the relationships could solely be due to common-method

or common-source bias.

39

Additional research performed in the workplace veriﬁes the relationships between
need fulﬁllment and types of satisfaction. For example, Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1989)
found that a manager’s tendency to support self-determination among employees was
highly correlated with employee ratings of general satisfaction (r = .69, p < .01). Ilardi,
Leone, Kasser, and Ryan (1993) found that supervisor and employee ratings of autonomy
and competence predicted positive outcomes including work satisfaction. And ﬁnally,
results of a large research project by Spector et al. (2002) showed that, among over 5,000
managers in 24 different countries, those who felt in control of their work exhibited
higher job satisfaction than those who felt that their work was driven by external
inﬂuences, suggesting again that a sense of autonomy is an important determinant of
one’s job satisfaction.

Sheldon et al. (1996, p. 1277) suggest that “the functional role of need-fulﬁlling
experiences. . .is to replenish psychological energies and thereby enable ongoing
motivated behavior.” In this sense, feelings of relatedness, autonomy, and competence
provide employees with the essential “psychological nutriments” that are necessary in
order to experience well-being (Ryan, 1995; Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996;
Sheldon et al., 1996). I therefore propose that the extent to which employees feel a sense
of relatedness, autonomy, and competence at work, which can be facilitated by engaging

in OCB I, will be positively related to their personal well-being.

Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between interpersonally—directed organizational

citizenship behaviors and positive affect will be mediated by fulﬁllment of the

employee’s needs for (a) relatedness, (b) autonomy, and (c) competence.

4O

Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and job satisfaction will be mediated by fulﬁllment of the

employee’s needs for (a) relatedness, (b) autonomy, and (c) competence.

Hypothesis 4: The negative relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and negative affect will be mediated by fulﬁllment of the

employee’s needs for (a) relatedness, (b) autonomy, and (c) competence.

Moderated Relationships among Citizenship, Need Fulﬁllment, and Personal Well-Being
Past theory and research suggests that motives for performing OCB are important
predictors of citizenship behavior. Indeed, research on the motives related to OCB (e. g.,
Grant, 2008; Yun, Takeuchi, & Liu, 2007) primarily focuses on identifying various
predictors of OCB. This is an important stream of research, as it provides greater
understanding of which employees engage in OCB and when they do so. Rioux and
Penner (2001) identiﬁed three major motives for performing OCB. The ﬁrst factor,
organizational concern, relates to the employee’s “pride in and commitment to the
organization;” prosocial values motives deal with “a need to be helpful and a desire to
build positive relationships with others;” impression management motives involve “a
desire to avoid looking bad to coworkers and supervisors to obtain rewards” (Rioux &
Penner, 2001, p. 1307). Although these various motives might lead an individual to
engage in OCB, it is clear that the three motives are distinct from one another. Especially

evident is the contrast between prosocial value motives and impression management

41

motives. The prior focuses on an individual’s need or desire to be helpful and to build
relationships with others. In contrast, the latter is focused on obtaining rewards or
preserving an image. Given the differences among these various motives, the present
research sets out to examine the differential effects of each motive on the relationship
between citizenship behaviors and personal and relational well-being outcomes.

Indeed, despite research examining motives as predictors of OCB, to my
knowledge, no research has examined how the motives for performing citizenship
behaviors moderate the impact of these behaviors on personal or relational outcomes.
Citizenship behaviors might occur in organizations because people are simply
predisposed to helping others and this is evidenced by their behaviors in the work
environment (e.g., prosocial value motives; Rioux & Penner, 2001). However, strong
situations might also determine behavior, meaning that some people might engage in
citizenship behaviors because cultural norms dictate that people be “team players” even if
being a team player is not part of the formal job description. Furthermore, some people
might engage in citizenship behaviors because doing so will allow them to obtain some
external outcome or reward, such as favorable performance evaluations from their
supervisors (e. g., Hui et al., 2000) or recommendations for promotion or rewards (e. g.,
Allen & Rush, 1998).

Because the intent of this study is to examine the impact of interpersonally-
directed citizenship behaviors (and not organization-directed citizenship behaviors) on
both personal and relational outcomes, I will not examine organizationally-relevant
motives for OCB (i.e., the organizational concern motive identiﬁed by Rioux & Penner,

2001). Rather, I will focus my investigation on the moderating impact that prosocial

42

value motives and impression management motives have on the relationship between
OCBI and the well-being outcomes.

Therefore, given that researchers have already addressed many of the antecedents
of OCB (including motives for OCB), and given the paucity of research addressing the
moderating effect that motives for OCB might have on relationships involving OCBI, and
ﬁnally, given the potential role that perceived or attributed motives for performing OCBI
could have on interpersonal or relational outcomes at work, and the role that actual
motives could have on the relationship between OCBI and personal well-being, I focus
this study on the moderating role of employee motives and coworker perceptions of
employee motives for OCBI. Doing so will provide the ﬁeld with valuable insight
regarding the impact that OCBI has on organizations (shown in the early work in OCB),
individuals (as discussed in the ﬁrst half of this paper) and coworker relationships (as
accomplished in the last half of this paper).

As an example of how motives might inﬂuence the relationships among OCBI,
need fulﬁlhnent, and personal well-being, consider the following. An employee is
preparing an important presentation and would beneﬁt from feedback on the presentation.
A coworker who is aware of the project and its importance offers to lend some “fresh
eyes” to look over the presentation. This illustrates behaviors that are not part of the
helping employee’s job description, but that represent considerable value for the
organization. Consider now, how the employee might respond if he did not have strong
prosocial tendencies, but rather felt compelled to help by strong organizational norms or
social pressures. In this instance, the employee might help, but would do so grudgingly,

inconsistent with his prosocial motives. This misﬁt between motives and behaviors would

43

create dissonance within the individual, hampering the ability of OCBI to enhance the
employee’s well-being. However, prosocial values are not the only motives that might
drive employee behaviors. Employees also might have strong motives to manage
impressions that coworkers have of them. Therefore, suppose an employee offers to help
review the presentation, even though doing so falls outside of her job description;
suppose further that this employee is particularly interested in the image that coworkers
have of her. This employee will be acting consistently with her internal motives for
impression management and will therefore experience consonance with internal values,
resulting in higher levels of personal well-being as an outcome of helping.

The variable beneﬁt of performing OCBI to employees with varying levels of
prosocial values and impression management motives can be understood by considering
the notion of self-concordance. Self-concordant goals are those goals which are
consistent with a person’s developing interests and core values (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).
This research suggests that pursuing self-concordant goals results in greater levels of goal
progress and higher levels of well-being. For example, Sheldon and Houser-Marko
(2001) found that new college students who were enrolled in college for self-concordant
reasons were signiﬁcantly better adjusted (including both social and emotional
adjustment) at the end of their ﬁrst and second semesters in college. In a study of nearly
1,000 employees and over two hundred leaders, Bono and Judge (2003) found that self-
concordance was positively related to employee outcomes such as job satisfaction and
organizational commitment.

Individuals with self-concordant goals were also more likely to feel a sense of

growth (i.e., their “struggle to grow and develop as a person”) and to experience greater

goal progress than those pursuing non-self—concordant goals. This suggests that pursuing
self-concordant goals (e.g., a highly prosocial individual who frequently offers help) is
likely to result in a heightened sense of competence, via the growth and development of
pursuing the goals. Furthermore, the social and emotional adjustment would likely
enhance the sense of relatedness that the individual has with other people, thereby
fulﬁlling another basic psychological need. Lastly, the pursuit of a goal that is completely
in aligrment with one’s intrinsic goals will naturally satisfy the individuals sense of
autonomy, as the nature of self-concordant goals suggests that they are goals which are
inherently engaging for the employee. Indeed, these arguments are supported by
empirical research indicating that the extent to which students pursued self-concordant
goals across the course of a semester was positively related to the fulﬁllment of their
needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy, and that these in turn predicted their
subjective well-being at the end of the semester (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).

Returning to the example of an employee choosing to help a coworker with a
presentation, I propose that the employee who helps because he genuinely cares about
helping others (i.e., has high prosocial value motives) will feel a sense of self-
concordance in his behaviors. That is, he will feel that the behaviors he undertakes are
consistent with what he values. Because of this he will feel a greater sense of autonomy,
as has elected to perform behaviors that are consistent with his goals and what he values.
Furthermore, because he highly values helping others and their success, his assistance to
his coworker will help him feel a greater sense of competence and purpose. In contrast,
the employee who helps his coworker merely to conform to social pressures, yet in

opposition to internal values, is likely to experience reduced intrinsic beneﬁt from

45

performing the citizenship behavior. In this context, he would not feel he is acting
autonomously because his actions are inconsistent with what he internally values, and
because he feels externally compelled to perform the behavior. This employee is also not
likely to feel as competent as an employee motivated by prosocial value motives, because
he does not see the way in which his actions inﬂuence valued outcomes. Finally, because
of the nature of interpersonally-directed OCB, providing help to another individual is
likely to provide more opportunities to experience a sense of relatedness; in sum, this will
result in the fulﬁllment of what Deci and Ryan (1985) suggest are the three fundamental
psychological needs.

Empirical research supports these assertions, as employees’ self-set goals that
were autonomous or self-concordant had a much higher rate of attainment (Sheldon &
Elliott, 1998), and self-concordant behaviors are shown to be positively related to
favorable job attitudes (Bono & Judge, 2003). Because motives for citizenship behaviors
might be due to either prosocial value motives or to impression management motives, the
consideration of how well behaviors match these motives is particularly important for the
implications of citizenship behaviors on the fulﬁllment of employees’ needs, and their
personal well-being.

A similar stream of research indicates the harmful effects of behaving in a manner
that does not represent one’s internal states or values. Studies on emotional labor suggest
that presenting an emotional “front” that is inconsistent with internally experienced states
results in emotional dissonance, which is a strong predictor of burnout and job
dissatisfaction (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002). This suggests that acting inconsistently

with one’s values may be harmful to one’s personal well-being. Speciﬁcally, when one

46

engages in discretionary behaviors because one feels compelled to do so, rather than
doing so because of internalized values, the result could be a decrease in well-being (e. g.,
positive affect, job satisfaction; Ryan & Deci, 2000; see also Brotheridge & Grandey,
2002; Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Reis et al., 2000; Sheldon et al., 1996). For these reasons,
I expect that when employee behaviors are not concordant with their motives, either
prosocial values or impression management, the employees will experience less of the
personal well-being beneﬁt that could be derived by performing a level of helping that is
consistent with their values and motives. Again, such research is consistent with
empirical ﬁndings from self-concordance research (Sheldon & Elliott, 1999; Sheldon &
Houser-Marko, 2001).

It is therefore evident that an employee’s motives for behavior are crucial to
understanding the extent to which such behaviors fulﬁll the employee’s needs, and the
extent to which the behaviors result in personal well-being outcomes. In contrast, it is the
coworker-attributions of the employee’s motives that have an impact on how the
employee’s citizenship behaviors inﬂuence relational well-being and its mediators.
Therefore, the interaction of an employee’s motives and helping behaviors should
primarily inﬂuence the employee’s personal well-being, whereas the interaction between
helping and coworker perceptions of the employee’s motives should inﬂuence relational

well-being, as explained later.
Hypothesis 5: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational

citizenship behavior and (a) positive affect and (b) job satisfaction, and the

negative relationship between interpersonally—directed organizational citizenship

47

behavior and (c) negative affect, will be moderated by the employee’s prosocial
value motives, such that employees with higher prosocial value motives will have

stronger relationships than employees with lower prosocial value motives.

Hypothesis 6: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and (a) positive affect and (b) job satisfaction, and the
negative relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship
behavior and (c) negative affect, will be moderated by the employee’s impression
management motives, such that employees with higher impression management
motives will have stronger positive relationships than employees with lower

impression management motives.

Hypothesis 7: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and the fulﬁllment of the needs for (a) relatedness, (b)
autonomy, and (c) competence, will be moderated by the employee’s prosocial
value motives, such that employees with higher prosocial value motives will have
stronger positive relationships than employees with lower prosocial value

motives.

Hypothesis 8: The positive relationship between interpersonally—directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and the fulﬁllment of the needs for (a) relatedness, (b)
autonomy, and (c) competence, will be moderated by the employee’s impression

management motives, such that employees with higher impression management

48

motives will have stronger positive relationships than employees with lower

impression management motives.

In addition to the formal hypotheses just presented, I also argue that the extent to
which the moderated relationships inﬂuence personal well-being outcomes is mediated
by the fulﬁllment of psychological needs. Speciﬁcally, the conceptual model presented in
this dissertation argues for mediated moderation, or in the language of Edwards and
Lambert (2007), for a ﬁrst-stage and direct-effects model. Therefore, the preceding
hypotheses will be complemented by an analysis of the extent to which the proposed
moderated effects are mediated by the fulﬁllment of psychological needs.

Citizenship Behaviors and Relational Well-Being

AS discussed earlier, citizenship behaviors are those actions which are
discretionary and are not encompassed by an employee’s formal job description. These
behaviors can range from being exceptionally punctual and attending non-mandatory
meetings, to assisting a coworker with a difﬁcult problem and helping a coworker in a
time of need. Because I am interested in the relational well-being which is derived from
citizenship behaviors, I focus on interpersonally-directed OCB, or OCBI, which are
discretionary behaviors that are performed with the intent to help another person; more
precisely, Williams and Anderson (1991) suggest that OCBI includes the courtesy and
altruism facets identiﬁed by Organ (1988).

Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) provides an effective conceptual framework
for OCB research. This theory describes the “exchange of activity, tangible or intangible,

and more or less rewarding or costly, between at least two persons” (Homans, 1961, p.

49

13). The notion behind social exchange theory is that individuals will provide one another
with goods with the expectation that they will receive other goods at some point in the
future. Relationships viewed in this way are assumed to strive towards equality, with
reciprocity ensuring that no inequity exists (Adams, 1965). Because of this social
exchange perspective, it is natural to consider the interpersonal or relational outcomes of
citizenship behaviors. Speciﬁcally, I will investigate how OCBI relate to coworker
exchange relationships, and how these are mediated by the extent to which coworkers
trust and like the employee. The choice of these constructs is based upon social exchange
theory which, as described earlier, outlines expectations which individuals form as they
exchange goods, including the trust that individuals develop, little by little, as they
exchange goods or services with one another across time. Below I present hypotheses
connecting OCBI to relational well-being by discussing research either directly or
indirectly linking citizenship behaviors to interpersonal relationships.

Perhaps the most frequently studied relationship in organizations has been the
relationship between leaders and their followers. Indeed, leader-member exchange theory
(LMX) has received a considerable amount of research attention over the past several
decades (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). Research on
LMX suggests that subordinates who receive favorable treatment from their supervisors,
through enhanced opportunities, resources, and other tasks that fall outside the
subordinates job description, feel a desire to reciprocate these beneﬁts to their leader.
Therefore, followers are presumed to engage in extra-role or citizenship behaviors, as a
way to reciprocate towards the leader. Meta-analytic estimates suggest that LMX and

OCB are modestly related constructs (p = .32, Hackett, Farh, Song, & Lapierre, 2003). A

50

more recent meta-analysis obtained a more exhaustive collection of research articles
relating LMX and OCB and found a slightly stronger relationship between the two
constructs (p = .37, Ilies et al., 2007). Also of note is the ﬁnding that interpersonally-
directed citizenship behavior correlated more strongly (p = .38) with LMX than did
organization-directed citizenship behaviors (p = .31, and the difference between the two
was statistically significant). The rationale is that, because LMX is an interpersonal,
relationship-based phenomenon, employees will reciprocate the preferential treatment by
performing interpersonally-focused citizenship behaviors that extend beyond their formal
job requirements.

A recent study by Nahrgang, Morgeson and Ilies (2009) took a growth curve
modeling approach to understanding how LMX develops between team leaders and team
members. With a sample of 69 team leaders and 330 team members, these researchers
traced the development of LMX relations over the initial 8 weeks following the formation
of teams participating in a team-based competition related to a masters of business
administration leadership course and undergraduate-level management capstone course.
Findings from their study indicate that initial ratings of LMX were primarily predicted by
leader agreeableness and follower extraversion. However, later ratings indicate that the
development of LMX is contingent upon leader and follower performance, including
follower contextual performance. This suggests that work relationships are not merely
due to interpersonal similarity or personality, but also due to actual behaviors and
performance in the workplace. Supervisors often form evaluations of employees based

both on in-role and extra-role behaviors (e.g., Allen & Rush, 1998) and the ﬁndings of

51

Nahrgang et al. provide some evidence that employees’ citizenship behaviors inﬂuence
the development of their relationships with their supervisor.

Related to the considerable amount of research on LMX is research examining
exchange relationships among team members (team-member eXchange, TMX; Seers,
1989) and the dyadic exchange relationships that occur among coworkers who do not
necessarily function in a team (coworker exchange, CWX; Sherony & Green, 2002).
These other forms of interpersonal exchange differ in the target of the exchange, but
follow similar conceptual arguments as to their development and outcomes. Indeed,
Venkataramani and Dalal (2007) point out that the connections between helping and
interpersonal relationship variables are not restricted to leader-follower settings, thereby
suggesting that ﬁndings from LMX and TMX research can be reasonably be applied to
CWX research.

On the basis of past theory and research, I propose that employees who perform
organizational citizenship behaviors, and particularly OCBS that are directed at other
individuals (OCB I) will develop stronger exchange relationships with their coworkers

than will those employees who do not engage is such interpersonally-directed behaviors.

Hypothesis 9: Employee interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors

will be positively related to coworker exchange (CWX).

Mechanisms Connecting Citizenship Behaviors and Relational Well-Being

Social exchange theory also helps explain potential mechanisms that might

account for the relationship between OCBI and relational well-being. As discussed

52

previously, social exchange theory suggests that individuals develop social bonds through
the “exchange of goods, material and non-material” (Homans, 1958, p. 597). These
exchanges could therefore include tangible gifts or objects of value, but could also
include intangible offerings such assistance interpreting a difﬁcult report or information
regarding company norms or policies. The premise of the theory is that mutual
reinforcement acts as the basis for elementary social behavior. As one person extends a
good to another, the other is implicitly expected to return a good in exchange. However,
this return of goods is expected to happen at an unspeciﬁed time, thereby distinguishing
social exchange theory from more determinate economic approaches to exchange. Blau
argues that with the repeated exchange of goods of increasing value, exchange partners
develop a sense of trust between them. This is the basis of my argument that trust will
mediate part of the relationship between OCBI and coworker exchange relationships.
Homans suggests that with the exchange of goods comes a favorable sentiment, such that
exchange partners might have some inclination to feel close or to like the other person.
Given research on affective correlates of citizenship behaviors, I will also hypothesize
that part of the OCBI - CWX relationship is mediated by coworker liking of the
employee.

Empirical research provides some insight as to the likelihood that the
mechanisms just discussed do indeed mediate the inﬂuence of OCBI on relational well-
being. For example, in characterizing exchange relationships, Tse and Dasborough
(2008) ﬁnd that TMX is signiﬁcantly related to ratings of relationships with team
members (r = .38, p < .05) and positive emotions (r = .77, p < .01). Relatedly,

Venkataramani and Dalal (2007) suggest that exchange relationships are related to

53

positive affective relationships and trust. They ﬁnd empirical support for a connection
between helping and positive affective relationships, and suggest that these relationships
contribute to the development of trust over time. This trust is the basis for the exchange
relationship, as the other party will be willing to accept short-term inequity with the
expectation that favors will be reciprocated in future interactions.

OCBS are also likely to signal to colleagues that the individual performing the
citizenship behaviors is a capable employee. In a study of 70 newcomers, 7O leaders, and
102 teammates in two different organizations, Chen & Klimoski (2003) studied how
newcomers’ past experience inﬂuenced team members’ expectations about the employee.
They also examined how these expectations related to the subsequent level of social
exchange which team members had with the new employee. They found that newcomer
experience was related to team expectations (,8 = .28, p < .05) and that these expectations
were signiﬁcantly related to social exchanges at time 2 (B = .24, p < .05). The important
point to consider from Chen and Klimoski’s ﬁndings is that it was not necessarily the
team member’s ability or actual experience which impacted subsequent exchange
relationships, but rather how the other team members perceived the newcomer’s ability.
This suggests that a critical determinant of CWX will be coworkers’ perception of the
employee’s ability. Helping behaviors signal that the employee extending the help is
capable at the task. Therefore, an employee who helps a coworker is demonstrating his or
her ability at the task. In other words, helping behaviors can be considered a way in
which employees can highlight skills which they have; these skills are particularly
valuable, especially during instances in which the coworker needs help (Flynn &

Brockner, 2003). Because of the potential impact of helping on others’ perceptions of the

54

helper’s ability, it is not surprising that the frequency and perceived generosity of help
has been shown to positively inﬂuence employee social status (Flynn, 2003, 2005).
Therefore, providing help might be a way in which employees improve their own
standing within the organization, thereby contributing to enhanced exchange relationships
with their peers.

Further insight into the relationship between OCBI and relational well-being is
offered through Mayer, Davis, and Schoorrnan’s (1995) model of trust, which suggests
that employee ability is a key determinant of perceived trustworthiness. Therefore,
employees who demonstrate high levels of ability by helping their coworkers should be
more likely to be trusted than those who are perceived as having low ability due to their
lack of helping behaviors. Considered together with the ﬁndings of Chen and Klimoski,
this suggests that employees who demonstrate their ability by helping their coworkers are
likely to be viewed as desirable exchange partners, thereby resulting in higher quality
coworker exchange relationships than those who do not perform OCBI, because such
behaviors send signals that the individual giving the help is capable and therefore able to
perform well on difﬁcult tasks.

Because of the discretionary nature of helping behaviors, and due to their positive
impact on important organizational outcomes (Organ, 1988), I expect individuals who
perform OCBS to be viewed as more capable than those who do not perform such
behaviors. Furthermore, those who are in need of help are likely to experience a sense of
liking and gratitude for the helper, as receiving help will get them nearer to goal
completion. Employees who consistently help and who are widely liked will be more

prone to develop a trustworthy reputation which should result in increased desire by

55

coworkers to engage in exchange relationships with the employee. In this way I expect
helping behaviors to be related to the quality of the coworker exchange relationship.

Given the positive reactions which coworkers will have to receiving help (via
OCBI by the employee), I expect OCBI to be positively related to subsequent CWX with
this relationship occurring through the inﬂuence of OCBI on coworkers’ trust in and

liking of the employee. I therefore hypothesize the following.

Hypothesis 10: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange will be mediated by (a) coworker

trust in the employee and (b) coworker liking of the employee.

Moderated Relationships among Citizenship, Trust, Liking, and Relational Well-Being

Social interactions in organizations are never entirely independent of one another.
This suggests that employee behaviors and interactions with their coworkers will be
interpreted in context of how that individual typically acts. These interpretations are
pervasive, because most people tend to try and make sense of their surroundings (Heider,
1958), including making attributions for the behaviors of those around them. Attribution
theory explains both how people form attributions for behavior, and how these
attributions Shape their reaction to behaviors. My emphasis is on the latter part of the
model; speciﬁcally, I consider how the attributions which coworkers make will inﬂuence
the positive relationship between OCB and relational well-being, and the relationship

between OCB and the mediators trust and liking.

56

In Bolino’s (1999) conceptual treatment of OCBS he considers whether
employees performing citizenship behaviors are “good soldiers” or merely “good actors.”
The underlying behaviors might be exactly the same, but it is the attributions which
employees make which might mean all the difference between reacting with gratitude
(Tesser et al., 1968) or with viewing the behavior as ofﬁce politics (Ferris et al., 1995).

Ferris et al. (1995) note that the organizational politics construct is closely related
to several other constructs, including impression management, and that the differences
between the various constructs are minimal. Therefore the study of ofﬁce politics and
citizenship behaviors provides a useful basis for my investigation of the moderating role
of impression management and prosocial value motives on the helping and relational
well-being relationship. “The key differentiating feature between politics and citizenship
is not so much the particular behaviors a person exhibits, but rather the motives or
intentions attributed to the person by the perceiver in making sense of why the behaviors
were displayed” (Ferris et al., 1995, p. 232). Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish
between activities designed to beneﬁt coworkers and the organization (OCB) and
activities designed to primarily beneﬁt the employee (politics), merely on the basis of the
behaviors themselves.

Behaviors such as providing favors or building up others through spoken
messages have been shown to increase an individual’s liking of the person performing the
behaviors (Ferris et al., 1995; Jones, 1990; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). A study by Tepper et
al. (2004) illustrates one reason why the interpretation of helping behaviors as political
versus prosocial is important. Over the course of two studies, Tepper et al. illustrate the

differential effects which OCBS performed by coworkers have on employees. Findings

57

from their ﬁrst study indicate that OCBS performed by coworkers are positively related to
employee organizational commitment seven months later. One reason why citizenship
behaviors might have this effect on employees is the inﬂuence which the frequent
performance of OCBS could have on an organization’s work climate. If coworkers are
frequently engaging in OCBS, workers might feel a greater sense of conﬁdence or trust in
their coworkers, knowing that they can rely upon them if they need help. In a second
study Tepper and colleagues found that when controlling for attributed motives for
OCBS, coworker OCBS were positively related to employee job satisfaction; this might
suggest that the positive atmosphere fostered by helpful coworkers results in the
employee liking his or her coworkers and job more than employees in an unhelpful work
environment. Not only did the Study by Tepper et al. illustrate the main effects of OCB
on these outcomes, but also the importance of the attributions which employees make for
their coworkers’ OCB. Speciﬁcally, the Study found that when coworkers who were
attributed with self-serving motives performed high levels of OCB, the employee was
less satisfied with the job than when the apparently self-serving coworkers performed low
levels of OCB. In contrast, when the employee observed high levels of OCB from
coworkers whose actions he or she attributed to well-intentioned motives, the employee
experienced much higher levels of job satisfaction than when the coworkers did not
perform OCB. Taken together, Tepper and colleagues’ two studies suggest that the
performance of OCB will inﬂuence another employee’s well-being, and that the inﬂuence
is moderated by the motives which help recipients attribute to their coworkers’ behaviors.
Given the positive impact which one employee’s citizenship behaviors can have

on another employee, and the likely increases in the help recipient’s liking of the job and

coworkers, along with the recipient’s increased commitment to the organization, I
suggest that employees perceived as having high prosocial motives are prone to be liked
more than those who help others and are perceived as having high impression
management motives. In addition to the moderating effect of prosocial value and
impression management motives, it is again worth noting that I expect a main positive
effect of helping on relational well-being, trust and liking.

An experimental study by Goranson and Berkowitz (1966) offers further insight
into how the perceived motivation behind helping behaviors inﬂuences subsequent
interactions between the helper and the help recipient. Subjects were divided into three
groups in which they received help from a confederate. One third of the subjects received
help that appeared to be autonomously initiated by the confederate, one third received
help after the confederate was apparently compelled to help, and one third were refused
help by the confederate. In a subsequent trial, the subjects were led to believe that they
were subordinates of a supervisor who happened to be the confederate from the prior
stage of the experiment. The supervisor was to receive a reward based upon how hard the
subordinate worked at a task. Findings indicate that those subjects whose supervisor had
taken the initiative to help them were likely to exert higher levels of effort than
subordinates who viewed the help they had received as being compulsory.

The study by Goranson and Berkowitz (1966) is particularly important to my
questions of interest as the design of the study outlines a working exchange relationship.
Consistent with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), people tend to strive towards equity
(Adams, 1965) by reciprocating received help at some later time. Social exchange theory

suggests that the reciprocation of goods or services is not explicitly established prior to or

59

during the interaction, but that it is implicitly assumed as a condition of the exchange.
Therefore, the various conditions of receiving help in the study of Goranson and
Berkowitz indicate the manner in which exchange relationships between coworkers might
vary depending on the perceived motives behind helping.

For example, in two-thirds of the conditions, a confederate helped the subject with
her task during the ﬁrst portion of the experiment. In the second stage of the experiment,
in which the confederate played the part of a supervisor, and the subject played the part
of the supervisor’s subordinate, researchers strongly implied that the subordinate’s
performance would be the primary determinant of whether the supervisor (the
confederate) would receive a cash prize. This situation clearly outlines an exchange
relationship, albeit an indirect one. The subject directly beneﬁted by the confederate’s
help during the ﬁrst portion of the experiment, whereas the confederate (supervisor)
beneﬁted indirectly from the subject’s (subordinate) efforts via the relationship between
subordinate effort and supervisor reward. These ﬁndings suggest that when coworkers
receive help from another employee, and the coworkers view this help as being sincerely
motivated rather than compelled, they are more likely to reciprocate the help through a
higher quality exchange. Therefore, helping that is attributed to prosocial motives will
more likely lead to high quality coworker exchange relationships than will helping that is
attributed to external motives which might include the seeking of external rewards via
impression management.

A second, and related, interpretation of these ﬁndings could be that coworkers
who attribute an employee’s help to prosocial motives could begin to view that employee

as someone in whom they can trust. Because attributions of helping behavior to stable

60

prosocial motives suggest a high level of reliability and invariance in the employee’s
behaviors, coworkers who attribute an employee’s help to prosocial value motives are
likely to trust that the employee will act in a similar fashion in other situations because
the motive is to obtain internal beneﬁts. In contrast, a coworker who attributes an
employee’s help to self-serving or impression managing motives might expect the
employee’s behaviors to vary depending on what would provide the employee with the
most instrumental beneﬁt. The accumulation of coworkers’ evaluations of an employee’s
trustworthiness is likely to lead to that employee’s development as either someone on
whom others can depend, or as a self—interested employee seeking primarily his or her
own gain. Therefore, attributions of the motives behind helping are likely to inﬂuence the
amount of trust that coworkers have in the employee, which will likely inﬂuence the
extent to which the employees develop a high quality coworker exchange relationship.
Other scholars also offer support for the notion that the value of helping behaviors
might be contingent upon the motives perceived to motivate helping. AS cited by Ferris et
al. (1995, p. 239), Jones and Pittman (1982, p. 179) argue that “the very success of
ingratiation usually depends on the actor’s concealment of ulterior motivation.” This
suggests that if ingratiation or other self-serving behaviors are performed in a way that
elicits prosocial attributions by observers, then the employee performing the behaviors
will derive considerable beneﬁt from the behaviors. In contrast, if the actor is unable to
conceal his or her self-serving intent then the recipients of the ingratiatory or helpful
behavior will warily respond and the actor will derive considerably less benefit from the

actions. I suggest that the critical factors determining the impact of behaviors on

61

relational well-being are the attributions which coworkers make for the help the
employee extends.

The model of trust developed by Mayer et al. (1995) suggests that factors of
perceived trustworthiness include benevolence and integrity. Benevolence is a concept
closely related to altruism. In other words, Mayer and colleagues’ model implicitly
suggests that performing altruistic citizenship behaviors is a manifestation of an
employee’s trustworthiness. Therefore, as employees demonstrate citizenship behaviors,
they are more likely to be trusted by their coworkers. One of the fundamental motives
thought to lead to citizenship behaviors is prosocial values. Individuals with prosocial
values engage in citizenship behaviors because it is the natural expression of who they
are. Employees with high prosocial values will engage in citizenship behaviors because
they are naturally inclined to do so, and they derive beneﬁt directly from the activity
because it is consistent with their internal desires (Rioux & Penner, 2001). As coworkers
make attributions that an employee’s citizenship behaviors are performed because the
employee sincerely likes helping other people, then the coworkers are likely to perceive
the employee as benevolent, and therefore trustworthy (Mayer et al., 1995). In contrast, if
employees are not intrinsically motivated by prosocial values, but rather by a desire to
manage impressions, the employee will derive beneﬁt from the impressions which others
form of him or her. However, when coworkers make impression managing attributions
for coworker citizenship behaviors, they might be less likely to respond favorably to the
help. This might be due to the coworker’s perception that the employee is not dealing
with integrity, another antecedent to trust identiﬁed by Mayer et al., thereby harming the

trust which the coworker might have in the employee. Coworkers who make impression

62

managing attributions to their coworkers also might be concerned that the employee is
providing help merely to gain social status or to generate a “favor deﬁcit” between the
two. Because people tend to avoid inequity (Adams, 1965), I suggest that helpers
attributed with impression managing motives will be liked by their coworkers less than
helpers who are attributed with prosocial motives (see Allen & Rush, 1998). Therefore,
the motive to which coworkers attribute employee helping are critical in determining the
coworkers’ reactions to the help, with the inﬂuence of helping on CWX occurring
through coworker trust in and liking of the employee.

In their study, Tepper et al. (2004) found that employee well-being was related to
the quantity of coworkers’ OCB. Findings indicate that the more an employee perceives
that his or her coworkers are engaging in citizenship behaviors, the higher the satisfaction
the employee experiences. These ﬁndings are moderated by the employee’s attributions
of the coworkers’ behaviors. When behaviors are attributed to good intentions, the
relationship is strongly positive. In contrast, when employees attribute coworker OCBS to
self-serving motives, the relationship between coworker OCB and employee job
satisfaction is negative. These ﬁndings suggest that workers who receive OCBS from
their colleagues will be more prone to like their colleagues, due to the beneﬁts they

derive from the relationship, but only when employees appear to have prosocial motives.

Hypothesis 11: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational

citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange will be moderated by coworker

attributions of the employee’s prosocial value motives, such that employees

63

attributed with higher prosocial value motives will have a stronger positive

relationship than employees attributed with lower prosocial value motives.

Hypothesis 12: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange will be moderated by coworker
attributions of the employee’s impression management motives, such that
employees attributed with higher impression management motives will have a
weaker positive relationship than employees attributed with lower impression

management motives.

Hypothesis 13: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and the mediators (a) trust in the employee and (b) liking of
the employee will be moderated by coworker attributions of the employee’s
prosocial value motives, such that employees attributed with higher prosocial
value motives will have stronger positive relationships than employees attributed

with lower prosocial value motives.

Hypothesis 14: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and the mediators (a) trust in the employee and (b) liking of
the employee will be moderated by coworker attributions of the employee’s
impression management motives, such that employees attributed with higher
impression management motives will have weaker positive relationships than

employees attributed with lower impression management motives.

64

Method

I tested the hypotheses with a ﬁeld sample of full-time employees and their
coworkers; ﬁrst I assessed employee interpersonally-directed citizenship behavior, as
rated by coworkers, and the inﬂuence that these behaviors have on employee-rated
relatedness, competence, and autonomy at time 1. [then tested the extent to which the
fulﬁllment of these needs mediated the relationship between citizenship behavior and
personal well-being, including positive affect, job satisfaction and negative affect, at time
2. I then tested employee self-rated prosocial value and impression management motives
as moderators of relationship between OCBI and personal well-being.

Second, in the relational well-being portion of the model I examined how
coworker-rated helping related to coworker-rated trust and liking at time 1, and how these
mediated the relationship between employee citizenship behavior and coworker exchange
relationships at time 2. Finally, I examined the extent to which coworker perceptions of
employee prosocial value and impression management motives moderated these
relationships. A summary of these relationships was presented earlier in Figure 1.

Research Setting and Participants

Before obtaining a sample of participants, I performed a power analysis to
determine the number of subjects I would need to ﬁnd my hypothesized effects. Given
the typically high reliability of the measures of helping and motives used in the study
(many exceeding a = .90; Rioux & Penner, 2001), and correlations ranging from nearly r
= .25 to r = .40 for the main effects (Ilies et al., 2007; Organ & Ryan, 1995), the required
power would be in the range of 70 to 140 participants. However, as I also investigate

moderating effects, I needed substantially more participants to achieve a reasonable level

65

of power to observe these effects. Speciﬁcally, using an alpha level of .05 and a power of
.80, and assuming that the interaction term would account for an additional three to four
percent of the variance in the outcomes, I needed to obtain data from approximately 186
to 250 participants.

Because a critical component of my model is interpersonally directed OCB, it is
important that my sample include employees who have opportunities to help their
coworkers on a regular basis. Therefore, my sampling strategy focused on entire
organizations or departments in which employees have a tendency to interact with one
another. Managers from participating organizations were asked “During a typical work
week, do employees in this organization have opportunities to interact with or help one
another in their work?” Organizations were only invited to participate if the manager was
able to indicate that employees indeed have opportunities to interact during a typical
work week. This ensured that participants have opportunities to interact with their peers
at work, thereby providing opportunities for variance in helping behaviors. Moreover, I
asked participants to answer the question, “On average, how often do you have
opportunities to interact with other employees, or help/receive help from other
employees?” Responses were given on a scale from I = once per year or less, to 7 =
hourly or more often. Over 73% of respondents reported having opportunities to help or
receive help from other employees several times per day or hourly or more often (scoring
either 6 or 7 on the 7-point scale). One respondent scored a 2 on the scale (more than
once per year) and all other respondents scored 3 (more than once per month) or higher.
Therefore, because no respondents scored on the bottom of the scale (I = once per year

or less) [included all respondents in the analyses.

66

I obtained responses from a total of 184 employees, matched at time 1 and time 2,
working in 9 different companies. The largest company and one of the smaller companies
create and sell software and web applications, and provide web design. Two companies
are in the healthcare sector (e.g., hospital, dental practice), one company provides
supplies for construction, and one provides ﬁnancial services; three other organizations
work in higher education. Within these various companies, employees held jobs related to
sales, shipping, marketing, software development, web development, nursing, dentistry,
and ﬁnancial services.

On average, the employees who participated in the study had 4.9 years experience
with their respective companies and held their current job title for 3.7 years. Over 78%
held at least a 4-year college degree and 60% of the participants were male. The majority
of the sample was Caucasian (90%), with participants also self-identifying as Asian (5%),
African-American (2%), Hispanic (1%), Paciﬁc-Islander (1%), and other (1%). The
majority of the respondents (N = 129) worked in one organization, and each of the
remaining respondents (N = 55) worked in one of the remaining 8 companies. A
comparison of respondents from the large organization versus all other respondents
indicated that the two groups are not signiﬁcantly different with regard to gender, race, or
level of education. However, the large group of respondents had, on average, 5.1 fewer
years working at their present company, and 4.5 fewer years working with their current
job title. This difference in tenure might be due to the fact that the ﬁrst company is
younger than most of the other companies (e. g., just over 20 years old, as compared to 70
years for the company with one of the larger groups of participants). I examined the

ﬁfteen variables used in the analyses via ANOVA, comparing mean levels of each

67

variable as a function of company afﬁliation, and found that there are no signiﬁcant
differences in mean levels for 11 of the 15 variables measured, with job satisfaction,
coworker exchange, and employee rated motives (prosocial and impression managing)
showing signiﬁcant differences in mean levels. [tested the hypotheses with a reduced
sample, including only participants from the largest group of respondents, and found that
the pattern of results was nearly identical to that for the entire sample. Therefore, I
include the full dataset in the analyses.

Procedure

As stated, data collection occurred in nine different organizations. Each
participating organization provided a list of potential participants, including names, email
addresses, and an indication of the coworkers with whom each employee interacts at
work. From this list I randomly selected three coworkers to rate each focal employee.
This approach ensured that there was no systematic selection of coworkers, thus
increasing the likelihood that I would obtain variance in coworker ratings of employee
OCBI, rather than allowing the employee to solicit ratings from coworkers who would all
provide high ratings of OCBI and coworker exchange (e. g., an employee would be likely
to suggest that a well-liked coworker provide ratings, rather than a coworker with whom
the employee had a poor relationship).

Once rating assignments were made for each coworker, I emailed each participant
in the organization with a form email brieﬂy summarizing the study, mentioning the
possibility of winning an iPhone for participating, and listing the names of the three
employt es whom they would rate. The email also contained the URL to an online survey

which would gather the participant’s responses. After approximately 4 days I sent a

68

reminder to participants who had not yet responded to the survey. Approximately three
days later I sent a ﬁnal reminder asking non-respondents to complete the survey.
Approximately one to two weeks after completing the ﬁrst survey, I sent participants an
email inviting them to complete the second and ﬁnal survey. Following the same pattern,
participants who completed the ﬁrst survey were sent up to two reminders before the data
collection for the organization was closed

When ﬁlling out the surveys at time 1, focal employees completed measures of
their motives for OCBI (prosocial values and impression management) and the
employee’s sense of relatedness, autonomy, and competence, as they had been
experienced over the preceding two months. Coworkers ﬁlled out a measure of the focal
employee’s OCBI over the prior two months, ratings of the employee’s motives for
performing the OCBI, and ratings of the coworkers’ trust in and liking of the employee.
At time 2, approximately 2 weeks later, I emailed each employee a link to an online
survey collecting positive affect, job satisfaction, and negative affect. At time 2
coworkers also reported on the quality of their exchange relationship with each of the
three employees they had rated at time 1.

The relationship between OCBI and personal well-being, including mediators and
moderators, was assessed via averaged coworker reports of employee OCB I, and
employee reports on measures estimating mediators, moderators, and outcomes. The
relationship between OCBI and coworker exchange, including the mediators and
moderators, was assessed from coworker reports, thus allowing me to examine how
coworker perceptions of employee OCBI inﬂuence the coworker-employee relationship.

Although the same-source responses for the relational well-being model do raise some

69

concern, the measures will either be separated temporally, or the relationships among

measures will be moderated, which minimizes concem that Signiﬁcant relationships

might be due to common source variance (Cummins, 1972; Evans, 1985).
Measurement

Measures Testing Relationship between Citizenship and Personal Well-Being

Interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors. OCBI was
measured by asking coworkers to respond to Williams and Anderson’s (1991) seven-item
measure, using anchors ranging from I = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree.
Example items read “This employee helps others who have been absent,” and “This
employee helps others who have heavy workloads.” These scores were then averaged,
such that each employee had a score comprised of the ratings made by his or her
coworkers. Reliability for this coworker-rated measure of helping was a = .89.

Motives for OCB. The employee’s motives for performing OCBI were self-
reported with Rioux and Penner’s (2001) prosocial values motive and impression
management motive scales, which were each ten items long. Employees were asked how
important each motive is for them with regard to why they perform helping behaviors at
work. Responses range from 1 = not at all important, to 7 = extremely important. The
measure of prosocial values motives had items such as “Because I feel it is important to
help those in need” and had a reliability of a = .85. The measure of impression
management motives had items such as “To impress my co-workers” and had a reliability
of a = .92.

Relatedness. The extent to which performing the helping behaviors satisﬁed the

employee’s need for relatedness was measured using Reis and colleagues two-item

70

measure (Reis et al., 2000). I also included an additional item, related to the original two
items, and modiﬁed all items to reference employees’ sense of relatedness with their
coworkers following OCBI over the preceding two months. I used this measure because
of its prevalence in research examining the relationship between need fulﬁllment and
individual well-being, and because of its considerable empirical support as a predictor of
well-being. The instructions for the measures reference behaviors over the past two
months that have been beyond the scope of normal job duties and in which the employee
has helped or assisted other coworkers. The stem read “After doing these things, I. . .” and
was followed by items such as “felt close and connected with my coworkers.” The entire
list of items is given in the appendix. Responses to the items were given by the employee
on a scale from 1 = not at all, to 7 = extremely. Reliability for the measure was a = .89.
Competence. The extent to which performing the helping behaviors satisﬁed the
employee’s need for competence was measured with three items based on the item used
by Reis et al. (2000; see also Wagner et al., 2008). The original measure asked
respondents to think about the three activities on which they spent the most time that day,
and to indicate their effectiveness at each of the three activities on a scale ranging from 1
(not at all eﬁ‘ective) to 7 (extremely effective). However, because my study examines
longer periods of time and one broad category of behaviors, I created two additional
items, similar to the item used by Reis et al., for a total of three items. This approach is
consistent with the measure used by Wagner et al. (2008). Participants were reminded of
various behaviors as examples of OCBI, and were then given the stem “After doing these

things, I...” followed by items such as “. . .felt capable as an employee.” Responses were

71

given by the employee on a scale from 1 = not at all, to 7 = extremely. Reliability for the
measure was a = .88.

Autonomy. The extent to which performing OCBI satisﬁed the employee’s need
for autonomy was measured with four items assessing external, introjected, identified,
and intrinsic motivation (Sheldon et al., 1996), and were weighted -2, -1, +1, and +2
respectively, and then summed to create an overall measure of autonomy. More
speciﬁcally, employees used a scale from 1 = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree.
Respondents were instructed to consider the times they performed certain behaviors
classiﬁed as OBCI over the past two months, and then read the stem “1 engaged in these
behaviors over the past two months because. . followed by the items “something about
my situation forced me to do it” (external), “1 made myself do it, to avoid anxiety or
guilt” (introjected), “interesting or not, I felt that it expressed my true values” (identiﬁed),
and “I did it purely for the interest and enjoyment in doing it” (intrinsic). “The score given
for the extrinsic motivation item was multiplied by negative two (-2), the score given for
the introjected motivation item was multiplied by negative one (-1), the score given for
the identiﬁed motivation item was unchanged (multiplied by positive one), and the score
given for the intrinsic motivation item was multiplied by positive two (+2). This
approach to evaluating the satisfaction of autonomy needs is common in studies of self-
deterrnination theory (c.f., Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991; Reis
et al., 2000; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995; Sheldon et al., 1996). As an alternative approach to
computing this scale I reverse coded the external and introjected items and then averaged
the four items. The coefﬁcient alpha for the measure when using this approach was a =

.44 (however, because of the weighting scheme used in this study coefﬁcient alpha does

72

not apply to this measure; this is consistent with the the lengthy list of studies just cited).
The two scales correlate r = .98, p < .01. For all analyses in the paper I use the summed
measure constructed using the weighting scheme proposed by past research (e. g., -2, -1,
+1, +2).

Positive and negative aﬁect. Positive and negative affect were self-reported by the
employee at time 2, by indicating the extent to which they felt 20 adjective descriptors of
affect from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson & Clark, 1994)
over the preceding two months. This measure was used because it is one of the most
widely used instruments to assess affect, typically demonstrates high reliabilities, and is
an important component of well-being. Adjectives for the positive scale include
“interested,” “enthusiastic,” and “excited,” and adjectives for the negative scale include
“upset,” “irritable,” and “distressed.” Responses were given on a scale from I = Slightly
or not at all, to 7 = very much, and had a reliability of a = .92 for PA and a = .89 for NA.

Job satisfaction. The employee’s job satisfaction over the prior two months was
self-reported at time 2 with the ﬁve-item Brayﬁeld-Rothe Index (Brayﬁeld & Rothe,
1951). This ﬁve-item version of the index is among the most frequently used measures of
employee job satisfaction, and provides a very concise measure of an important facet of
well-being; the measure also generally shows strong internal consistency. The items in
the measure were modiﬁed from a general evaluation of job satisfaction to an assessment
of job attitudes over the preceding two months. The specific items read as follows: “Over
the past two months [have found real enjoyment in my work,” “Most days over the past
two months I have felt enthusiastic about my work,” “During the past two months I have

felt fairly satisﬁed with my present job,” “Each day of work over the past two months has

73

seemed like it would never end” (reverse-coded) and “During the last two months I have
considered my job rather unpleasant” (reverse-coded). Ratings were given on a seven-
point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree. Reliability for the
measure was a = .86.
Measures Testing Relationship between Citizenship and Relational Well-Being
Interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors. OCBI was
measured by asking coworkers to respond to Williams and Anderson’s (1991) seven-item
measure, using anchors ranging from I = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree.
Example items read “This employee helps others who have been absent,” and “This
employee helps others who have heavy workloads.” I use this measure of OCBI because
of its prevalence in the literature and its strong nomological support; of course, the
primary reason for using the measure is because it directly assesses the construct of
interest, OCBI. Reliability for this coworker-rated measure of helping was a = .89.
Motives for OCB. Coworkers were asked to attribute the motives which drove the
employee’s OCBI over the prior two months by responding to Rioux and Penner’s (2001)
prosocial values motives and impression management motive scales (ten items each).
Coworkers indicated how important they thought that each of the statements was for the
employee in determining his or her motivation for helping others at work. Responses
range from I = not at all important, to 7 = extremely important. The measure of
prosocial values motives had items such as “Because s/he feels it is important to help
those in need” and had a reliability of a = .94. The measure of impression management
motives had items such as “To impress her/his co-workers” and had a reliability of a =

.96.

74

Trust. Coworkers were asked to indicate the extent of their trust in the employee
by responding to the six-item cognition-based trust scale by McAllister (1995). I selected
this scale because it assesses the extent to which coworkers trust the employee’s
professionalism, job-related competence, and general performance in the workplace.
These are perceptions which I expect to be related to the employee’s performance of
OCBI in the workplace. The measure includes items such as “Most people, even those
who aren't close friends of this individual, trust and respect him/her as a coworker,” and
“I can rely on this person not to make my job more difﬁcult by careless work.” All items
were rated on a scale from I = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree. The measure had
a reliability of a = .91.

Liking. The extent to which coworkers like the focal employee was assessed with
a four-item measure used by Wayne and Ferris (1990). The measure originally referred to
leader-subordinate relationships; I adapted the measure to instead refer to coworker
relationships. The ﬁrst item “How much do you like this coworker?” was rated on a scale
from I = I don’t like this coworker at all, to 7 = I like this coworker very much. The
remaining three items, which included items such as “Working with this person is a
pleasure,” were rated on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree.
Reliability for the measure was a = .93.

Relationship quality. Relationship quality was measured at time 2, using Sherony
and Green’s (2002) six-item measure of coworker exchange, which was derived from
Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1995) measure of leader-member exchange. This measure was
chosen because it is the only measure that deals directly with coworker exchange

relationships, and is derived from an already well-validated measure of LMX. Coworker

75

responses were given on a scale from I to 7, with various anchors as shown in the
appendix. Example items read “Do you know where you stand with this co-worker?” and
“How would you characterize your working relationship with this co-worker?”

Reliability for the measure was a = .92.

76

Analyses and Results
C onﬁrmatory Factor Analyses

Although all of the measures used in this study are previously validated and well-
established in the literature, before performing substantive analyses I ensured that the
proposed constructs were indeed uniquely measured and that they each loaded on their
appropriate construct. To achieve this I performed a series of conﬁrmatory factor
analyses (CFAs). The results of these analyses are given in Table 1. Because I have four
different combinations of measures (source by time), I performed four different CFAs.
The ﬁrst included employee-rated measures at time 1. These items were meant to
represent six different constructs: OCBI, prosocial value motives, impression
management motives, relatedness, autonomy, and competence. Therefore, [ ran a one-
factor model with all items loading on one common factor, a two-factor model, with
items loading on an OCB factor (OCBI, prosocial motives, impression management
motives) and a need fulﬁllment factor, and a six-factor model, with items loading on their
hypothesized constructs. An evaluation of the comparative ﬁt indices (CFI), root mean-
squared error of approximation (RMSEA), and the x2 values for the various models
indicates that the six-factor model, with each construct loading on its own factor,
represents the most appropriate structure for the data, with the lowest )8 (1457.35, 614 df)
and RMSEA (.080) values, and highest CFI (.786) value. Moreover, the six-factor model
ﬁt the data signiﬁcantly better than the two-factor model (Ax2 = 1860.90, 14 dﬁ p < .01).

Employee responses at time 2, including positive affect, job satisfaction, and

negative affect, were examined in three separate CFAs with comparisons made between

77

Table 1. Conﬁrmatory Factor Analyses

 

Model df x2 CFI RMSEA SRMR
Employee Measures: T1

One-factor model 629 3644.95 .233 .150 .183
Two-factor model 628 3318.25 .316 .142 .179
Six-factor model 614 1457.35 .786 .080 .092
Employee Measures: T2

One-factor model 275 1843.69 .481 .173 .164
Two-factor model 274 1632.74 .55 l .161 .166
Three-factor model 272 951.07 .775 .1 14 .092
Coworker Measures: Tl

One-factor model 629 12600.21 .459 .178 .214
Two-factor model 628 10721.17 .544 .164 .215
Five-factor model 619 6017.99 .892 .080 .061
Coworker Measures: T2

One-factor model 9 95.424 .959 .136 .032

 

Note. N = 213 for employee T1; N = 192 for employee T2; N = 602 for coworker T1; N =
521 for coworker T2; CFI = comparative ﬁt index; RMSEA = root mean squared error of
approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean squared residual.

the one-factor, two-factor (affect factor and satisfaction factor) and three factor models.

Evaluation of the comparative ﬁt indices (CFI), root mean-squared error of

approximation (RMSEA), and the x2 values for the various models suggests that a three-
factor model, with each construct loading on its own factor, represents the most
appropriate structure for the data, with the lowest )8 (951.07, 272 df) and RMSEA (.114)

values, and highest CFI (.775) value. The three-factor model ﬁt the data signiﬁcantly

better than the two-factor model (1398 = 681.67, 2 df, p < .01).

78

Coworker responses at time 1, which include ratings of employee OCBI,
perceived prosocial motives for helping, perceived impression managing motives for
helping, trust in the employee, and liking of the employee, were also analyzed via CFA.
The resulting comparative ﬁt indices (CFI), root mean-squared error of approximation
(RMSEA), and the x2 values for the various models contrast the ﬁt of the data to a one-
factor model, a two—factor model (OCBI and motives as one factor, trust and liking as the
second factor), and a ﬁve-factor model with each set of items loading on its a priori
factor. Through these analyses I was able to determine that the ﬁve-factor model, with
each construct loading on its own factor, represents the most appropriate structure for the
data, with the lowest x2 (6017.99, 619 df) and RMSEA (.080) values, and highest CFI
(.892) value. This ﬁve-factor model ﬁt the data signiﬁcantly better than the two-factor
model (sz = 4703.18, 9 df, p < .01).

Finally, coworker responses at time 2 consisted of only one measure, and I
therefore performed a CFA to ensure that the a priori factor structure of the measure held
for my data. The comparative ﬁt index (CFI), and the 12 value suggests that the one-
factor model is a reasonable ﬁt for the data (12 = 95.42, 9 df, RMSEA = .136; CFI =
.959). See Table l for a summary of each of these measurement models and the
competing models.

Personal Well-Being Analyses

I tested the personal well-being hypotheses via ordinary least squares regression,
using hierarchical regression for the hypotheses examining moderator effects. In testing
this portion of the model, I used the average coworker ratings of employee OCBI over the

prior two months; therefore, I computed the inter-rater and group-mean reliability of

79

OCBI ratings to assess the appropriateness of aggregating this measure, and to give
empirical rationale for the conceptually relevant estimate of the actual citizenship
behaviors in which the employee engaged over the prior two months. Results indicate
signiﬁcant inter-rater reliability (ICC I = .18, p < .01). However, the group-mean
reliability was quite low (1C C2 = .32), which is due to the small number of coworkers
providing ratings for each employee (the average number of raters was 2.14 per

employee). In addition to computing the [CC for OCBI ratings, I also computed an index
of interrater agreement (rwg; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). In doing so I used the null

or rectangular distribution, consistent with the notion that a random selection of
coworkers should provide ratings of OCBI covering the entire range of the scale. Results

suggest a high level of agreement among coworkers in ratings of employee OCBI
(median rWG = .90), exceeding cutoff criteria recently proposed by Cohen, Doveh, and

Nahum-Shani (2009). Based on these collective tests, I have a reasonable empirical basis
for aggregation of OCBI ratings; therefore, as planned, I use them as predictors in the
personal well-being analyses.
Personal Well-Being Results

To give an overview of how the variables in the study are related, I present a
correlation matrix in Table 2. Examination of the correlation matrix indicates that
average OCBI ratings are positively related to self-ratings of prosocial value motives (r =
.22, p < .01), but unrelated to impression management motives. The table also indicates
that self-ratings of motives for helping are not signiﬁcantly correlated (r = .06, p > .10),
suggesting that it is appropriate to examine the moderating effects of prosocial value

motives and impression management motives separately from one another. The

80

.N BE: 3 $2838 .3 3:2 3 0322; ._ DE: 8 88.838 3 .038 2 swab: S 8322; “a 2:: a ODE—QED .3 CBS 9 swab:
\t 8322? ._ 68: an porno—EEO t3 totem?— c smack: _ 8328,» 3 DE: 3 mwccﬁ 281038 owEon u 500 .vam3 N Z 632

 

 

 

 

a3 ion. :8. 2..- :8. 8. 8.- 8. Rm 85888838.:
8.8 :8. :8.- ssme. 8. 8. 8. 28 2.8-— .2
:3 :8.- .28. 8.- *2. 8. 88 as:- .2
63 3.8.- 8. :.- 8.2 43 Esau-.882 ease-ease .:
$3 8.- 2. 8. 2H 82; 36888 .2
88 it..- 8. 82 2824 2,882 .e
68 8.2 88 8:888 8. .w

E 2 2 _ _ 2 a m S. 2 e3ea>
8.- 8.- 8.- 8. +2.- 8. 3.8. 8. EA 8823-288an .2
8. 8. 8. *2. 8. *2. :8. 8. 28 8&5 .2
8. 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8. :2. 8. 8w 8; .2
8.- 8. 5.- 8. :8. 8.- it..- 8.2 43 888%: 8:888 .:
2. 8. 8. :8. 8. tom :8. 8. 2a 8.3333885 .2
ram.- 8. t...- :.- 2. .5.- 8. 8. 8.2 5e? 2882 .e
:8. *2. t2. *2. 8.- *2. :2. 82 88 8288882 .8
$8 :. :2. *2. 2.- t8. 2. 8. 8.4. 6322288 H
58 :8. :8. 2. :8. 8. 8. 88 88.888 e
ton ram- :8. 8. can 8.4 589.2 .n
88 8. ram. 2. 8. one. 88282 .4
A88 8. 8. NS 28 258852 882%: .m
88 5.8. 8. :3 83322888 .N
68 8. New Boo ._

A e m e m N _ an 2 ezea>

 

$33.23» $35. z< mzeE< 8.2023339 ._ 295,—.

81

correlations also indicate that the extent to which each of the needs for relatedness,
competence, and autonomy was fulﬁlled over the ﬁrst time period of the study was
positively related to at least one of the personal well-being outcomes at the second
measurement period (see Table 2 for details).

Hypothesis I predicted that interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship
behaviors would be positively related to employee personal well-being, including (a)
positive affect and (b) job satisfaction, and negatively related to (c) negative affect.
Results of the regression analyses indicate that average coworker-rated OCBI is not
related to positive affect (,6 = .10, t = 1.38, p > .10; see Table 3) or negative affect (,8 =
.00, t = .04, p > .10; see Table 5), but is marginally related to job satisfaction (,8 = .14, t =
1.86, p < .10; see Table 4), consistent with Hypothesis 1b. Thus Hypothesis 1a and 1c
were not supported, and Hypothesis 1b received weak support. See Tables 3, 4, and 5 for
more details regarding these results.

Table 3. Regression of Positive Aﬁ‘ect on Interpersonally-Directed Citizenship Behaviors
(OCBI) and Mediators

 

Predictors B ,6 T B ,8 T
Intercept 3.35 9.72** 2.90 6.21**
OCBI .09 .10 1.38 .08 .10 1.25
Relatedness .05 .08 .93
Autonomy .01 .1 l 1.32
Competence .02 .03 .36

R2 .01 .04

 

Note. N = 174. OCBI represents averaged coworker ratings at time 1. Fulﬁllment of the
needs for relatedness, autonomy and competence employee-rated at time 1. B values
represent raw regression coefﬁcients and ,6 values represent standardized regression
coefﬁcients, computed with ordinary least squares regression. 'l' p < .10, two-tailed. * p <
.05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

82

Table 4. Regression of Job Satisfaction on Interpersonally-Directed Citizenship
Behaviors (OCBI) and Mediators

 

Predictors B ,8 T B ,6 T
Intercept 4.61 8.19** 3.41 4.48**
OCBI .19 .14 1.86? .16 .12 1.59
Relatedness .09 .09 .98
Autonomy .02 .11 1.38
Competence .13 .11 1.29
R2 .00 .07

 

Note. N = 174. OCBI represents averaged coworker ratings at time 1. Fulﬁllment of the
needs for relatedness, autonomy and competence employee-rated at time 1. B values
represent raw regression coefﬁcients and ,8 values represent standardized regression
coefﬁcients, computed with ordinary least squares regression. T p < .10, two-tailed. * p <
.05, two-tailed. ** p < .01,two-tai1ed.

Table 5. Regression of Negative Affect on Interpersonally-Directed Citizenship Behaviors
(OCBI) and Mediators

 

Predictors B ,B T B ,9 T
Intercept 1.68 5.36** 1.83 4.28**
OCBI .00 .00 .04 .01 .02 .20
Relatedness -.08 -. 13 -1.47
Autonomy -.01 -.13 -l.58
Competence .05 .08 .97
R2 .02 .03

 

Note. N = 174. OCBI represents averaged coworker ratings at time 1. Fulfillment of the
needs for relatedness, autonomy and competence employee-rated at time 1. B values
represent raw regression coefﬁcients and ,8 values represent standardized regression
coefﬁcients, computed with ordinary least squares regression. 'l' p < .10, two-tailed. * p <
.05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that the positive relationship between interpersonally-

directed organizational citizenship behaviors and positive affect will be mediated by

83

fulﬁllment of the employee’s needs for (a) relatedness, (b) autonomy, and (c)
competence. However, there can be no mediating effect of these variables because there
is no signiﬁcant relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship
behavior and positive affect (see Table 3). Therefore, Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c are not
supported. Furthermore, examination of the mediators, measured at time 1, as predictors
of positive affect at time 2 indicates that there is no relationship between the fulﬁllment
of needs for relatedness, autonomy, or competence and positive affect (,8 = .08, t = .93, p
> .10;/3 = .11, t: l.32,p > .10;,6 = .03, t= .36,p > .10).

Hypothesis 3 predicted that the positive relationship between interpersonally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors and job satisfaction would be mediated by
fulﬁllment of the employee’s needs for (a) relatedness, (b) autonomy, and (c)
competence. The relationship between citizenship behaviors and job satisfaction was
marginally signiﬁcant, and thus there is a possibility that some of this effect could be
mediated. However, none of the proposed mediators were themselves signiﬁcantly
related to job satisfaction at time 2. Therefore, Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c were not
supported (see Table 4). Furthermore, results indicate the lack of a relationship between
interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors and the fulﬁllment of needs
for relatedness (ﬂ = .12, t: 1.53, p > .10; see Table 6), autonomy (,8 = .05, t = .68, p >

.10; see Table 7), and competence (,6 = .05, t = .71, p > .10; see Table 8)

84

Table 6. Regression of Relatedness on OCBI and Motives for Helping

 

 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Predictors B ,B T B ,6 T B ,8 T
Intercept 4.73 9.21** 5.48 74.45** 5.50 74.27**
OCBI .14 .12 1.53 .05 .04 .53 .17 .14 1.85?
PSV .50 .33 4.28**
IM .01 .01 .12
OCBI x PSV .16 .09 1.24
OCBI x [M .19 .21 2.73**
R2 .01 .11 .06

 

Note. N = 174. OCBI represents averaged coworker ratings at time 1. Prosocial value
motives, impression management motives, and fulﬁllment of the need for relatedness
employee-rated at time 1. ,8 values represent standardized regression coefﬁcients. ‘1' p <
.10, two-tailed. * p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

Table 7. Regression of Autonomy on OCBI and Motives for Helping

 

 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Predictors B ,6 T B ,8 T B ,8 T
Intercept 3.07 1.06 5.00 12.14** 4.99 12.27**
OCBI .36 .05 .68 -.18 -.03 -.35 .34 .05 .67
PSV 2.88 .34 4.38**
[M -l.27 —.30 -4.12**
OCBI x PSV -.10 -.01 -.14
OCBI x IM —.29 -.06 -.78
R2 .00 .12 .10

 

Note. N = 174. OCBI represents averaged coworker ratings at time 1. Prosocial value
motives, impression management motives, and fulﬁllment of the need for autonomy
employee-rated at time 1. B values represent raw regression coefﬁcients and ﬂ values
represent standardized regression coefﬁcients, computed with ordinary least squares
regression. l' p < .10, two-tailed. * p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

85

Table 8. Regression of Competence on OCBI and Motives for Helping

 

 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Predictors B 6 T B ,6 T B 6 T
Intercept 5.46 10.94** 5.79 80.32** 5.81 79.55**
OCBI .06 .05 .71 -.02 -.02 -.20 .07 .06 .77
PSV .44 .30 3.83**
[M .07 .10 1.33
OCBI x PSV .08 .05 .64
OCBI x [M .05 .06 .72
R"- .08 .02

 

Note. N = 174. OCBI represents averaged coworker ratings at time 1. Prosocial value
motives, impression management motives, and fulﬁllment of the need for competence
employee—rated at time 1. B values represent raw regression coefﬁcients and 6 values
represent standardized regression c0efﬁcients, computed with ordinary least squares
regression. 'l' p < .10, two-tailed. * p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that the negative relationship between interpersonally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors and negative affect would be mediated by
fulﬁllment of the employee’s needs for (a) relatedness, (b) autonomy, and (c)
competence. Because there was no direct effect of citizenship behavior on negative
affect, there is no need to test for mediation. Therefore, Hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c were
not supported (see Table 5).

Hypothesis 5 predicted that the relationship between interpersonally-directed
organizational citizenship behaviors and (a) positive affect and (b) job satisfaction, would
be more strongly positive, and that the negative relationship between interpersonally-

directed organizational citizenship behavior and (0) negative affect would be more

strongly negative, for those who reported higher prosocial value motives, than for those

86

who reported lower prosocial value motives. Results indicate that the interaction between
citizenship behaviors and prosocial value motives was not signiﬁcantly related to positive
affect (,6 = .02, t = .23, p > .10; see Table 9), job satisfaction (6 = -.02, t = -.29, p > .10;
see Table 10), or negative affect (,6 = .00, t = -.02, p > .10; see Table 11). Therefore,
Hypotheses 5a, 5b, and 5c were not supported. However, it is worth noting that prosocial
value motives assessed at time 1 were signiﬁcantly related to positive affect (6 = .23, t=
2.91, p < .01) and marginally related to negative affect (,6 = -.15, t: -l.87, p < .10) at

time 2.

Table 9. Regression of Positive Aﬂect on OCBI and Motives for Helping

 

 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Predictors B ,6 T B 6 T B ,6 T
Intercept 3.35 9.72** 3.81 75.30** 3.83 76.04**
OCBI .09 . 10 1.38 .04 .05 .68 .08 . 10 1.26
PSV .23 .23 2.91**
IM -.05 -.10 -1.29
OCBI x PSV .02 .02 .23
OCBI x IM -.06 -.09 -1.23
R2 .01 .06 .03

 

Note. N = 174. OCBI represents averaged coworker ratings at time 1. Prosocial value
motives and impression management motives employee-rated at time 1. Positive affect
employee-rated at time 2. ,6 values represent standardized regression coefﬁcients,
computed with ordinary least squares regression. 'l' p < .10, two-tailed. * p < .05, two-
tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

87

Table 10. Regression of Job Satisfaction on OCBI and Motives for Helping

 

 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Predictors B 6 T B ,6 T B 6 T
Intercept 4.61 8. 19** 5.65 67.15** 5.65 68.58**
OCBI .19 .14 1.867 .15 .11 1.45 .18 .13 1.75
PSV .20 .12 1.53
IM -.06 -.07 -.97
OCBI x PSV -.04 -.02 -.29
OCBI x 1M -.07 -.08 -.99
R2 .00 .03 .03

 

Note. N = 174. OCBI represents averaged coworker ratings at time 1. Prosocial value
motives and impression management motives employee-rated at time 1. Job satisfaction
employee-rated at time 2. 6 values represent standardized regression coefﬁcients. 1‘ p <
.10, two-tailed. * p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

Table 11. Regression (j Negative Aﬂect on OCBI and Motives for Helping

 

 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Predictors B ,6 T B ,6 T B ,6 T
Intercept 1.68 5.36** 1.70 36.27** 1.70 36.99**
OCBI .00 .00 .04 .03 .04 .18 .00 .00 .00
PSV -.14 -.15 -l.87'§'
IM .06 .12 1.60
OCBI x PSV .00 .00 -.02
OCBI x 1M .00 -.01 -.10
R2 .02 .02 .01

 

Note. N = 174. OCBI represents averaged coworker ratings at time 1. Prosocial value
motives and impression management motives employee-rated at time 1. Negative affect
employee-rated at time 2. ,6 values represent standardized regression coefﬁcients. 'l' p <
.10, two-tailed. * p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

88

Hypothesis 6 predicted that the relationship between interpersonally-directed
organizational citizenship behaviors and (a) positive affect and (b) job satisfaction, would
be more strongly positive, and that the negative relationship between interpersonally-
directed organizational citizenship behavior and (c) negative affect would be more
strongly negative, for those who reported higher impression management motives, than
for those who reported lower impression management motives. Results indicate that the
interaction between citizenship behaviors and impression management motives was not
signiﬁcantly related to positive affect (6 = -.09, t = -1.23, p > .10; see Table 9), job
satisfaction (6 = -.08, t = -.99, p > .10; see Table 10), or negative affect (6 = -.01, t = -.10,
p > .10; see Table 11). Therefore, Hypotheses 6a, 6b, and 60 were not supported.

Hypothesis 7 predicted that the positive relationship between interpersonally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors and the fulﬁllment of the needs for (a)
relatedness, (b) autonomy, and (c) competence, would be moderated by the employee’s
prosocial value motives, such that employees with higher prosocial value motives will
have stronger positive relationships than employees with lower prosocial value motives.
Results indicate that the interaction between citizenship behaviors and prosocial value
motives was not signiﬁcantly related to the fulﬁllment of the needs for relatedness (6 =
.09, t = 1.24, p > .10; see Table 6), autonomy (6 = -.01, t = -.14, p > .10; see Table 7), or
competence (6 = .05, t = .64, p > .10; see Table 8). Therefore, Hypotheses 7a, 7b, and 7c
were not supported. However, the results do indicate that prosocial value motives have a
direct effect on relatedness (6 = .33, t = 4.28, p < .01; see Table 6), autonomy (6 = .34, t =

4.38, p < .01; see Table 7), and competence (6 = .30, t = 3.83, p < .01; see Table 8).

89

be
in]
ct!
Sht
the
31:11
IWQ
Thiz'
Flgu

benej

Hypothesis 8 predicted that the positive relationship between interpersonally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors and the fulﬁllment of the needs for (a)
relatedness, (b) autonomy, and (c) competence, would be moderated by the employee’s
impression management motives, such that employees with higher impression
management motives will have stronger positive relationships than employees with lower
impression management motives. Results indicate that the interaction between citizenship
behaviors and impression management motives was related to the fulﬁllment of the need
for relatedness (6 = .21, t = 2.73, p < .01; see Table 6), but not to the fulfillment of the
needs for autonomy (6 = -.06, t = -.78, p > .10; see Table 7), or competence (6 = .06, t =
.72, p > .10; see Table 8). Therefore, Hypothesis 8a was supported, whereas Hypotheses
8b and 8c were not supported. Furthermore, individuals’ impression management motives
were signiﬁcantly negatively related to the fulﬁllment of their need for autonomy (6 = -
.30, t = -4.12, p < .01; see Table 7), providing additional insight into the relationship
between motives for helping and the fulfillment of psychological needs. The nature of the
interaction between citizenship behaviors and impression management motives and their
effect on the fulﬁllment of the need for relatedness is shown in Figure 2. This ﬁgure
shows high OCBI and impression management motives at one standard deviation above
their respective means, and low OCBI and impression management motives at one
standard deviation below the respective means. The scale of the outcomes ranges from
two standard deviations above, to two standard deviations below the respective means.
This same convention is followed in the figures for all interactions in the manuscript.
Figure 2 illustrates that individuals who report high impression management motives

beneﬁt much more from performing citizenship behaviors in that they experience a strong

90

 

p051
thei
den
fulf
Fig

R t" l1

mod
med
“1011
01110
(Edit
{ll Va]

Effeo

positive relationship between performing citizenship behaviors and the fulﬁllment of
their needs for relatedness, whereas those low on impression management motives do not
demonstrate any relationship between performing citizenship behaviors and the
fulﬁllment of their need for relatedness.

Figure 2. Moderating Effect of Impression Management Motives on Relationship

Between Interpersonally-Directed Citizenship Behaviors and Fulfillment of the Need for
Relatedness

7.46

 

 

 

 

 

3.54
Low OCBI High OCBI

 

—l—Low IM —o -High IM‘;

 

 

In addition to the formal hypotheses tested above, I also predicted that the
moderated effect of citizenship behaviors on personal well-being outcomes would be
mediated by the fulﬁllment of psychological needs, with citizenship behaviors having a
moderated effect on the mediators, and the mediators exerting a direct effect on the
outcomes. This approach is referred to as a direct effect and ﬁrst stage moderation model
(Edwards & Lambert, 2007). Using this approach allows me to test the paths of the model
at varying levels of the moderator and combine the effects to determine the overall direct

effect and overall indirect effects at varying levels of motives for helping.

91

cont
mid

0100
betu

their

rating
their
the 5;
mode
indep

PIOVit

Variab

COWQr

Results from this analysis indicate that employees who report a low level of
impression management motives (one standard deviation below the mean) experience no
connection between the performance of interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors
and relatedness. In contrast, those who report high levels of impression managing
motives (one standard deviation above the mean) experience a positive relationship
between performing interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors and the fulﬁllment of
their need for relatedness (95% conﬁdence interval ranging from B = .13 to B = .80). The
remaining relationships analyzed via the method proposed by Edwards and Lambert
(2007) indicate that there is no direct moderated effect nor indirect moderated effect
(mediated moderation) between citizenship behaviors and the outcomes at levels of
impression management and prosocial value motives one standard deviation above and
below the respective means.

Relational Well-Being Analyses

For the relational well—being portion of the model, up to three coworkers supplied
ratings of their perceptions of employee behaviors as well as their own attitudes about
their relationship with the employee. Because data from various sources will be linked to
the same focal individual (the employee), I analyzed the data with a hierarchical linear
modeling (HLM) framework. Using HLM will allow me to account for the non-
independence of ratings made about the same target (i.e., the focal employee), and
provide robust standard errors with which I can test the beta coefﬁcients in the model.

By creating a two-level model with the employee as the level-two grouping
variable, I am able to account for the fact that some employees might be rated by several

coworkers, whereas others might only be rated by one coworker. HLM accounts for these

92

 

 

CC“

H10

ber'

am

“ET

Tab

 

belWe‘
1 of th-

the W

differences in numbers when computing the standard errors, thereby providing robust
standard errors with which to test the statistical signiﬁcance of the coefﬁcient estimates.
It is important to note that I do not center the level-one variables; rather, I perform
analyses on uncentered data, which allows me to examine the collective impact of both
rater perceptions and actual employee behaviors. An example of the data ﬁle is shown
below in Table 12. This example data illustrates that employee 1001 is rated by two
coworkers, whereas employee 1002 is rated by three coworkers. The two-level HLM
model I use for the analyses examines the relationships among variables, including both
between and within employee variance (i.e., no variables were centered), while still
accounting for the fact that multiple ratings were made for each employee and that there
were different numbers of ratings for each employee.

Table 12. Example Data Structure for Level-I HLM Data File

 

 

 

 

 

 

EmployeeID RaterID OCBI CWX
1001 1078 5.14 5.33
1001 1105 5.86 5.17
1002 1010 5.20 5.44
1002 1061 6.29 6.58
1002 1083 4.71 6.50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To test the proposed relationships, I ﬁrst established the direct relationship
between OCBI (coworker-rated at time 1) and the relational well—being outcome in model
1 of the analyses, by regressing coworker exchange (time 2) on OCBI (time 1). To test

the mediating effect of trust and liking on the relationship between OCBI and relational

93

0r.
lht
i110
the
col:
bfll

ﬁllet

well-being, I separately regressed each mediator on helping to establish the possibility
that the variables might mediate the relationship. After illustrating that the mediators are
related to OCBI, I can then test whether they mediate the relationship between OCBI and
the outcome. This is done by adding the mediators to the regression of the outcome on
helping in step two of the regression equation. The proportion decrease in the coefﬁcient
for OCBI indicates the proportion of the effect of OCBI on the outcome that is mediated
by trust and liking. Although the CFA illustrated that prosocial value and impression
management motives for helping are not orthogonal, they are distinct measures,
displaying a moderately low correlation (level-1 correlation of r = .35, p < .01; the
creators of the scale, Rioux & Penner, 2001, found a correlation of r = .30). Therefore, to
account for any shared variance that the two measures might have, I included each
measure in tests of the relational well-being hypotheses; because results were
substantively equivalent when including both moderators or each moderator separately, I
present the results of the analyses using each measure separately.

To test the proposed moderation of the relationship between interpersonally-
directed citizenship behaviors and relational well-being, I regressed coworker exchange
on OCBI, attributed motives for OCBI, and the interactions between OCBI and each of
the attributed motives. A signiﬁcant regression coefﬁcient for the interaction term
indicates that the relationship between OCBI and relational well-being differs based upon
the attributed motives of the OCBI. The next stage of the analysis was to test whether
coworker ratings of trust and liking at time 1 mediated the moderated relationship
between OCBI and relational well-being. To test this, to the equation including the main

effects of OCBI, attributed motives, and their interactions, I also added the mediators

94

pa

(trust and liking) into the regression equation. The decrease in the strength of the
relationship between the interaction of OCBI and motives and the outcome indicates the
extent to which the moderated relationship is mediated by trust and liking. By following
the approach suggested by Edwards and Lambert (2007), the direct and indirect effects
can be calculated by multiplying the coefﬁcient estimates for each path in the conceptual
model, thereby yielding the direct effect of the citizenship behaviors and motives, and the
portion of the moderated effect that is exerted on coworker exchange through the
mediators (indirect effect), at different levels of the moderators (e. g., one standard
deviation above and below the mean).
Relational Well-Being Results

Before examining speciﬁc hypotheses, I present a correlation matrix summarizing
the relationships among the variables in Table 13. These correlations were computed in
HLM by estimating single-level models with a single predictor. The effects were
standardized by multiplying the coefficient of the predictor by its standard deviation and
dividing by the standard deviation of the outcome. These standard deviations were
obtained from null models in which the variable was predicted with only an intercept at
level one, and which partitioned the variance observed in the variable into between- and
within-employee components. This approach controls for the lack of interdependence
among ratings of the same employee. The correlations in the matrix range from small to
moderately high, although none of the correlations exceeds the reliability of any

particular measure.

95

60:86:: .5. v m .2. 880—838 E 08:38: 083 8:08 =< .N 2:: 8 :88 83 Mama—«:88 825300 3 0:5 8

:88 :8 203 $2: 0:8 48.: .8358 38:88:88 E28895 .8322: 632, 3088: .CmUOV 53230 958806 8:288:88
08086-33880985 .2382: :08 :8 23.8 E20568 308:8: 3:086 65 w:o_a 83¢> .883. 65 :m 532:; :28 8038:
w:_>o:8: .3 86:26:“: :88 :8 2:308 2802:? 25 ”:88 98:2 05 0:308 082:8 8% 0:“ .0322; m:_::o:w N232 05 8
:88 85 86: 300:: a :23 88:58 6:63 3:828 65 95% 80:38.80 .28: 38:80:: :23 0:8 652:; wﬁmsew N-_o>o_ 65
8 8.33:8 85 :23 309: a E 38808 3:0me 85 326: 80:29:00 :23 21.3 E 859:8 683 8238-50 .80 M Z .262

 

 

30.0 0.315 6.3140. **0m.- from. “.3340. ow. 2mm owgnoxm $610300 .0
6.3.05. Amt-0.0 “.3345. sci-m.- **o0. **w0. 0w. Ow.m wﬁx: .0
0.3.30. **:.. 3&0 83?. .800. **m0. 0o. vwﬁ “ma-H .v
**0v.- *ivr 8.0V.- A0o.v **mm.- **mm.. we; “um-M am: 5:889:— .m
“.350. **N0. “.3340. “.3494.- GVGQ **w0. vw. 3.0 mo:_a> 3680.5 .N
“.330. 8&0. **m0. 6.31%.- 8.3.. 3M3 cm. 34.0 _mUO ._

c m 4 m N _ QM. 3 20mia>

 

3:0: .2: x: =o~tomw=mmmé$$ 326.2632 8: 5 833.23» 3553 3:238:69 .2 038,—.

96

Hypothesis 9 predicted that employee interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors would be positively related to coworker exchange. Results indicate
that citizenship behaviors rated by a peer at time 1 were strongly related to the peer’s
rating of coworker exchange with the employee at time 2 (,6 = .73, t = 20.23, p < .01; see

Table 14). Therefore, Hypothesis 9 was supported.

Table 14. Reggssion 0f Coworker Exchange ( C WX) on Helpingnd Motives for Helping

 

 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Predictors B ,8 T B ,B T B ,B T
Intercept .29 1.71‘1‘ 3.64 95.28** 3.67 109.00*
OCBI .63 .73 20.23** .54 .61 14.92** .59 .68 18.82“
PSV .18 .20 444’”
IM -.12 -.20 -5.98
OCBI x PSV .07 .1 l 2.95**
OCBI x IM -.03 -.05 -1.07
R2 .49 .50 .48

 

Note. N = 602. OCBI = interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors
(time 1); PSV = prosocial value motives (time 1); [M = impression management motives
(time 1). Coworker exchange measured at time 2. B values represent raw regression
coefﬁcients and ,6 values represent standardized regression coefﬁcients computed with a
hierarchical linear model (HLM) with predictors and criterion at level 1 and the employee
as the grouping variable at level 2. All variables are coworker rated. T p < .10, two-tailed.
* p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

Hypothesis 10 predicted that the positive relationship between interpersonally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange would be mediated
by (a) coworker trust in the employee and (b) coworker liking of the employee. To test

this hypothesis, 1 ﬁrst regressed trust and liking on citizenship behaviors in separate

97

equations. Results indicate that interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors indeed
predict both trust in (,6 = .80, t= 19.22, p < .01; see Table 15) and liking of the employee
(,3 = .81, I: 25.17, p < .01; see Table 16). Next I regressed coworker exchange on
citizenship behaviors, coworker trust in the employee, and coworker liking of the
employee. Results indicate that both trust in (,8 = .10, t = 2.38, p < .05; see Table 17,
Model 1) and liking of the employee (,8 = .43, t = 9.51, p < .01; see Table 17, Model 1)
signiﬁcantly predict coworker exchange ratings at time 2, and that the effect of
interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors, although still signiﬁcant ([9 = .33, t: 7.36,
p < .01; see Table 17, Model 1), is reduced by over 54%. This provides support for
Hypothesis 10, and indicates that the relationship between citizenship behaviors and

coworker exchange is partially mediated by coworker trust in and liking of the employee.

Table 15. Regression of Trust on Helping and Motives for Helping

 

 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Predictors B ,8 T B 8 T B ,B T
Intercept 1.74 7.60** 5.80 126.12* 5.78 149.67 *
OCBI .75 .80 19.22** .60 .64 11.12** .63 .68 16.66**
PSV .16 .18 3.19**
IM -.21 -.32 -9.34**
OCBI x PSV -.09 -.13 -3.13**
OCBI x [M .09 .15 3.88**
R2 .41 .46 .50

 

Note. N = 602. OCBI = interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors
(time 1); PSV = prosocial value motives (time 1); [M = impression management motives
(time 1). Coworker exchange measured at time 2. ,8 values represent standardized
regression coefﬁcients computed with a hierarchical linear model (HLM) with predictors
and criterion at level 1 and the employee as the grouping variable at level 2. All variables
are coworker rated. T p < .10, two-tailed. * p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

98

Table 16. Regression of Liking on Helping and Motives for Helping

 

 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Predictors B B T B ,B T B ,B T
Intercept 1.74 9.78** 5.77 145.50* 5.77 168.28*
OCBI .75 .81 25.17** .47 .51 11.72** .68 .74 22.68**
PSV .37 .41 9.26**
[M -.13 -.20 -5.85**
OCBI x PSV -.03 -.05 -1.03
OCBI x [M .04 .07 200*
R2 .47 .50 .49

 

Table 17. Regression of Coworker Exchange ( C WX) on Helping, Motives for Helping and
Trust, Interpersonal Commitment, and Liking

 

 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Predictors B 3 T B ,8 T B ,B T
Intercept -.48 -2.75** .92 3.83** 1.16 4.57 **
OCBI .29 .33 7.36** .29 .34 7.64** .29 .34 7.65**
PSV .03 .04 .88
1M -.05 -.08 -2.67**
Trust .09 .10 238* .10 .12 2.89** .07 .09 1.90‘l'
Liking .37 .43 9.51** .37 .43 9.30** .36 .43 9.31**
OCBIxPSV .09 .13 5.11**
OCBI x [M -.05 -.08 244*
R2 .63 .63 .62

 

Note. N = 602. OCBI, PSV, IM, liking and trust rated at time 1. Coworker exchange rated
at time 2. ,6 values represent standardized regression coefﬁcients computed with a
hierarchical linear model (HLM) with predictors and criterion at level 1 and the employee
as the grouping variable at level 2. All variables are coworker rated. 1' p < .10, two-tailed.
* p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

99

Hypothesis 11 predicted that the positive relationship between interpersonally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange would be
moderated by coworker perceptions of the employee’s prosocial value motives, such that
employees viewed as having higher prosocial value motives will have a stronger positive
relationship than employees viewed as having lower prosocial value motives. Results
indicate that the interaction between peer ratings of employee citizenship behaviors and
prosocial value motives signiﬁcantly predicts ratings of coworker exchange at time 2 (B =
.11., t = 2.95, p < .01; see Table 14, Model 2). The form of this interaction is shown in
Figure 3 and illustrates that employees who are perceived as having high prosocial value
motives, as opposed to low prosocial value motives, experience a stronger positive
connection between their citizenship behaviors and the coworker exchange relationships
that they have with their coworkers. These ﬁndings provide support for Hypothesis 11.

Hypothesis 12 predicted that the positive relationship between interpersonally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange would be
moderated by coworker perceptions of the employee’s impression management motives,
such that employees viewed as having higher impression management motives would
have a weaker positive relationship than employees viewed as having lower impression
management motives. Results indicate that the interaction between peer ratings of
employee citizenship behaviors and impression management motives does not
signiﬁcantly predict ratings of coworker exchange at time 2 (,6 = -.05, t = -1.07, p > .10;

see Table 14, Model 3). Therefore Hypothesis 12 was not supported.

100

Figure 3. Moderating Effect of Prosocial Value Motives on Relationship Between
Interpersonally-Directed Citizenship Behaviors and Coworker Exchange

 

 

 

5.24
8. 4.44 4
C
a
f.
X
E 3.64 ~
5‘2
5
g
8 2.84 ~
2.04

 

 

Low OCBI High OCBI

 

E—o - Low PSV —I—High PSV

 

 

Hypothesis 13 predicted that the positive relationship between interpersonally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors and the mediators (a) trust in the employee
and (b) liking of the employee would be moderated by coworker perceptions of the
employee’s prosocial value motives, such that employees viewed as having higher
prosocial value motives will have stronger positive relationships than employees viewed
as having lower prosocial value motives. Results indicate that the interaction between
peer ratings of employee citizenship behaviors and prosocial value motives predicts the
extent to which coworkers trust the employee (,6 = -.13, I: -3.13, p < .01; see Table 15,
Model 2), explaining an additional 5% of the variance in coworker trust. The form of this
relationship illustrates that perceived prosocial value motives have a positive main effect
on coworker trust in the employee, but that the strength of the relationship between

citizenship behavior and trust in the employee is actually stronger for those who are

101

 

perceived as having lower prosocial value motives (Figure 4), which is opposite to what I
hypothesized. In contrast, the interaction of citizenship behaviors and perceived prosocial
value motives did not signiﬁcantly predict coworker liking of the employee (,8 = -.05, t =
-l.03, p > .10; see Table 16, Model 2). Therefore, Hypothesis 13a was not supported,
with a signiﬁcant effect Opposite that hypothesized, and Hypothesis 13b was not
supported.

Figure 4. Moderating Eﬁ‘ect of Prosocial Value Motives on the Relationship between
OCBI and Trust

 

7.60

6.70 —

5.80 .

 

.h
.8
‘

Coworker Trust in Employee

 

 

P
8

Low OCBI High OCBI

 

‘—o - Low PSV —I—High PSV

 

 

Hypothesis 14 predicted that the positive relationship between interpersonally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors and the mediators (a) trust in the employee
and (b) liking of the employee would be moderated by coworker perceptions of the
employee’s impression management motives, such that employees viewed as having
higher impression management motives will have weaker positive relationships than

employees viewed as having lower impression management motives. Results indicate

102

 

that the interaction between peer ratings of employee citizenship behaviors and
impression management motives predicts the extent to which coworkers trust the
employee (,8 = .15, t = 3.88, p < .01; see Table 15, Model 3), explaining an additional 9%
of the variance in coworker trust. The form of this relationship is such that employees
low in impression management motives are more trusted, on average. However, the
connection between citizenship behaviors and trust is actually more strongly positive for
those employees perceived as having high impression management motives, as compared
to those perceived as having low impression management motives (Figure 5).

Likewise, results also indicate that the interaction between peer ratings of
employee citizenship behaviors and impression management motives predicts the extent
to which coworkers like the employee (,8 = .07, t = 2.00, p < .05; see Table 16, Model 3),
explaining an additional 2% of the variance in coworker liking of the employee. The
form of this relationship is similar to that for trust in the coworker, as those lower on
impression management motives appear to be more liked, on average, but the
performance of citizenship behaviors is more strongly positively related to liking of the
employee for those perceived as having higher, as opposed to lower, impression
management motives (Figure 6). Therefore, both Hypothesis 14a and 14b found
statistically signiﬁcant results, but these results were opposite the direction hypothesized,

and thus were not supported.

103

Figure 5. Moderating Effect of Impression Management Motives on the Relationship
between OCBI and Trust

 

7.58

6.68 —

5.78 ~

 

4.88 4 /

Coworker Trust in Employee

 

3.98

 

 

Low OCBI High OCBI

 

—I-—Low IM —-o -High IM

 

 

 

Figure 6. Moderating Effect of Impression Management Motives on the Relationship
between OCBI and Liking

7.47

 

 

4.92 « (

Coworker Liking of Employee
01
\l
\l

 

4.07

 

 

Low OCBI High OCBI

 

—l-—Low IM —o -High IM

 

 

104

Finally, the nature of the preceding hypotheses, that interpersonally-directed
citizenship behaviors predict coworker exchange, as moderated by perceived motives,
and mediated by coworker trust and liking, suggests that the data should be analyzed as
mediated moderation. In the language of Edwards and Lambert (2007), this is a direct
effect and ﬁrst stage moderation model. I therefore follow Edwards and Lambert’s
suggestions for computing the direct and indirect effects that are attributable to each
portion of the path model, providing an overall assessment of the moderated effects in the
model, whether they be mediated or directly related to the outcome.

Findings from the examination of the direct moderated effects, and the indirect
moderated effects (i.e., the moderated effect of citizenship behaviors on trust and liking,
and the subsequent effect of trust and liking on coworker exchange) are summarized in
Table 18. These results indicate that both the indirect and the direct effects have an
impact on coworker exchange relationships. Speciﬁcally, at low levels of perceived
prosocial value motivation, the direct effects (.204) are not as strong as those when
perceived prosocial value motives are high (.385). Figure 7 demonstrates the form of
these relationships, illustrating a disordinal effect, in which performing citizenship
behaviors is critical for employees perceived as having high prosocial motives, because
of the strong positive relationship between citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange
relationships for these employees. In contrast, employees viewed as having low prosocial
motives experience a weaker positive direct effect of citizenship behaviors on their

coworker exchange relationships.

105

Table 23. Direct and Indirect Effects on Coworker Exchange at Various Levels of
Prosocial Value Motives and Impression Management Motives

 

 

 

 

 

High Prosocial Value Motives High Impression Management Motives
Indirect Direct Total Indirect Direct Total
Effects Effects Effects Effects Effects Effects

.213 .385 .599 .323 .228 .552

Low Prosocial Value Motives Low Impression Management Motives
Indirect Direct Total Indirect Direct Total
Effects Effects Effects Effects Effects Effects

.258 .204 .462 .261 .357 .619

 

Note. Effects presented are from raw coefﬁcient estimates, with all constructs measured
on 7-point scales. Indirect effects include the sum of the respective products of the
relationship between citizenship behavior and each mediator (trust and liking), and the
relationship between each mediator and coworker exchange, as moderated by prosocial
value motives or impression management motives. Direct effects include the effect of
mterpersonally-directed citizenship behavior on coworker exchange as moderated by
prosocial value motives or impression management motives.

However, the difference in the total effects at low (.462) and high (.599) ratings of
prosocial value motives, although statistically signiﬁcant, is not as drastic as one might
expect (see Figure 8), given the strong direct effects. The reason that the overall effect is
not as drastic as would be expected, given the disordinal effect shown in Figure 7, is
because of the larger indirect effects under low (.258) rather than high (.213) prosocial
value motives.

These effects are primarily due to the moderating effect of perceived prosocial
value motives on the relationship between citizenship behaviors and coworker trust in the
employee. Figure 9 illustrates that performing citizenship behaviors has a stronger

positive effect on coworker trust for employees perceived as being less prosocially

motivated. This unexpected form of the relationship indicates a suppressing effect of

106

Figure 7. Moderating Effect of Prosocial Value Motives on Direct Effect between
Citizenship and C oworker Exchange

2.52

 

1.72 .

0.924 .— --' -O

 

0.12 ~
Low OCBI High OCBI

 

Direct Effect on Coworker Exchange
(Controlling for Trust and Liking)

.6
8

 

 

 

i—o - Low PSV —I—High PSV

 

Figure 8. Total Relationship between Citizenship and Coworker Exchange as Moderated
by Prosocial Value Motives

 

 

 

 

 

g 5.24
C
a
8
8 4.44~
52
O
5 3.644
C
O
"' 2.844
8
ll]
Ts
g 2.04

Low OCBI High OCBI

 

i—o - Low PSV —I—High Psvl

 

107

Figure 9. Moderating Eﬁ‘ect of Prosocial Value Motives on Relationship between OCBI
and Trust

7.60

 

6.70 —

5.80 ~

 

4.90 ~

Coworker Trust In Employee

 

 

4.00

 

Low OCBI High OCBI

 

{—0 - Low PSV -l—High PSV

 

 

coworker trust on the relationship between citizenship behavior and coworker exchange
relationships, as moderated by perceived prosocial value motivation.

Notwithstanding these suppressor effects, the results suggest that when employees
are perceived as having high prosocial value motives in performing their citizenship
behaviors, the behaviors have an overall stronger positive impact on their coworker
exchange relationships than when the employees perform the same behaviors, but are
perceived as doing so for less prosocial reasons.

Similarly, the extent to which employees are perceived as having high impression
management motives inﬂuences the strength of the direct connection between citizenship
behaviors and coworker exchange (i.e., when controlling for trust and liking; see Table
17, Model 3). The pattern of results (Table 18) indicates that the direct effect of

citizenship behavior on coworker exchange is stronger when the employee is perceived as

108

having low impression management motives (.357) as opposed to when the employee is
perceived as having high impression management motives (.228). This moderating effect
is shown in Figure 10.

However, opposite effects are seen on the mediators, such that low impression
management motives result in smaller indirect effects (.261) than when impression
management motives are viewed as high (.323). This is due to the significant moderating
effect of impression management motives on the relationships between citizenship
behaviors and both coworker trust in and liking of the employee. Figure 11 illustrates
these moderating relationships as they relate to coworker trust in the employee, and
Figure 12 illustrates how coworker liking of the employee is a function of perceived

impression management motives and citizenship behaviors.

Figure 10. Moderating Effect of Impression Management Motives on Direct Effect of
OCBI on C WX

2.69

 

1.89 4

1.09 ~

 

0.29 ~

Low OCBI High OCBI

 

 

Direct Effect on Coworker Exchange
(Controllmg for Trust and Liking)

-0.51

 

 

l—l—Low IM —o -High lMi

109

 

Figure 11. Moderating Effect of Impression Management Motives on Relationship
between OCBI and Trust

 

7.58

o:
8

5.78 —

 

Coworker Trust in Employee
A
8

 

 

 

3.98
Low OCBI High OCBI

 

—l—Low IM —0 -High IM

 

 

 

Figure 12. Moderating Eﬂect of Impression Management Motives on Relationship
between Citizenship and Coworker Liking of the Employee

7.47

 

.01
o:
m

:5

(O

to
l

 

Coworker Liking of Employee
01
\l
\l

 

4.07

 

 

Low OCBI High OCBI

 

—I—Low IM —o -High iMT’

 

 

110

Adding together the direct and indirect effects at varying levels of the moderator
results in overall effects that are not statistically different from one another (.619 for low,
.552 for high), which conclusion can also he arrived at visually by combining the simple
slopes from the three graphs presented above.

The contrast in these total effects is consistent with the results shown in Table 14,
Model 2 and Model 3, indicating an overall relationship between the interaction of

citizenship behavior and prosocial value motives and coworker exchange, but not

 

between the interaction of citizenship behavior and impression management motives and

coworker exchange.

111

Discussion
Discussion for Personal Well-Being Model

This study examined the manner in which interpersonally-directed citizenship
behaviors inﬂuence an employee’s personal well-being through the behaviors’ effects on
the fulﬁllment of basic psychological needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence.
This was accomplished through a two-stage data collection procedure in which responses
were obtained from focal employees and from several coworkers, each of whom rated the
focal employee. Findings from the study offer weak support for the hypotheses related to
personal well-being. First, there was no support for a direct connection between
coworker-rated interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors measured at time 1, and the
personal well-being outcomes, positive affect and negative affect, measured at time 2.
Because of the lack of a direct connection between interpersonally-directed citizenship
behaviors and the affective facets of personal well-being, there is no possibility that there
could be a mediating effect of need fulﬁllment on these relationships. Thus, these
mediation hypotheses were unsupported. However, interpersonally-directed citizenship
behavior was related to job satisfaction, but this relationship was not mediated, in part
because of the lack of a relationship between citizenship behavior and the fulﬁllment of
needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence.

With regard to the moderating effect of prosocial value and impression
management motives on the connection between citizenship behaviors and personal well-
being, the data are not supportive of a relationship between the interaction terms and the
well-being criteria. However, with regard to the relationship between citizenship

behaviors and the fulﬁllment of psychological needs, the data do suggest that motives are

112

 

an important moderator. Speciﬁcally, the results indicate that the extent to which
performing citizenship behavior fulﬁlls employees’ needs for relatedness is contingent
upon the employees’ impression management motives. The results for this relationship
indicate that employees who report low levels of impression management motives
experience no change in the fulﬁllment of their needs for relatedness as a function of
their citizenship behaviors. In contrast, those employees who report high levels of
impression management motives experience a strong and positive relationship between
performing interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors and the fulﬁllment of their
need for relatedness. One explanation for this is that individuals who experience strong
motivation to manage impressions are particularly concerned with how they are viewed
by others, and thus view citizenship behaviors in an instrumental manner, as a means of
feeling connected with others. In contrast, those with weaker impression management
motives might be less concerned with public perception and might not perceive a strong
connection between performing citizenship behaviors and feeling related to their
coworkers.

In addition to the above-mentioned results of the tests of formal hypotheses, the
analyses reported for the ﬁrst half of the model also present other interesting ﬁndings.
First, although the mediation analyses were unsupported, there was a signiﬁcant
relationship between the fulﬁllment of an employee’s need for autonomy and the
employee’s positive and negative affect at a later point in time. Speciﬁcally, those who
felt that their behaviors were autonomously driven experienced higher positive affect and

lower negative affect two weeks later.

113

 

Another notable ﬁnding from the analyses indicates that motives for helping are
signiﬁcantly related to well-being outcomes (e.g., positive affect and negative affect) and
also to the fulﬁllment of needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence. Speciﬁcally,
those individuals who reported that they engaged in citizenship behaviors because they
were prosocially motivated (time 1), were more likely to experience higher levels of
positive affect and lower levels of negative affect at a later point in time (time 2). The
employees who reported higher prosocial value motives were also more likely to
experience the fulﬁllment of their needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence, as
compared to those employees reporting lower levels of prosocial value motives. Finally,
individuals reporting high impression management motives experienced less fulﬁllment
of their need for autonomy compared to those who were low in impression management
motives.

At least three of the ﬁndings just mentioned have theoretical or practical
implications for management research. First, research on self-determination has
suggested that the fulﬁllment of needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence is
important for well-being. However, much of the research in this ﬁeld has either been
performed in lab settings or has been performed with student samples (e.g., Deci,
Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000), although notable
exceptions to these settings can be found in the literature (e. g., Deci, Connell, & Ryan,
1989; Wagner, et al., 2008). Therefore, by examining the relationship between the
fulﬁllment of the need for autonomy and personal well-being outcomes in a work setting
with full-time employees, this study strengthens research on self-determination theory by

connecting the research to work settings. Therefore, the ﬁrst implication of this research

114

for management theory is the ﬁnding that self-determination theory constructs are useful
for understanding how full-time employees obtain well-being at work.

Second, with the growing phenomenon of work teams in organizations (Vella,
2008), and with the clear importance of social interactions in the workplace, this study
suggests that interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors have implications for an
employee’s sense of relatedness or belonging in the workplace, particularly when the
performance of these behaviors is consistent with the employees’ driving motives.
Speciﬁcally, those who were driven by impression management motives experienced a
positive relationship between performing citizenship behaviors and the fulﬁllment of
their need for relatedness. In other words, those who care about managing impressions
need to perform citizenship behaviors in order to feel that they belong. This ﬁnding could
be used when considering the composition of work teams and characteristics of work
teams that are critical for team effectiveness. For example, if a team requires that team
members feel a sense of relatedness or connectedness with one another, it would be
important to ensure that highly impression managing employees have sufﬁcient
opportunities for citizenship behaviors as these will lead to a higher sense of relatedness
in the group. This study thus shows the functional value that impression management
motives might have for employee belonging.

Impression management is centered on creating a certain perception by others,
either to avoid looking bad or to gain rewards (Rioux & Penner, 2001). The driving
motivation behind impression management is the perception that others will hold about
the individual driven by the motive. Therefore, the need for relatedness is particularly

relevant because feeling connected or related to others will be inﬂuenced by how one

115

feels he or she is viewed by others. And because the behaviors of interest in this study are
interpersonally-directed, the sense of relatedness one has with others is of central
importance. However, it appears that those employees motivated by impression
management feel that their behaviors, even discretionary behaviors such as OCB l, are not
driven by intrinsic motivation. Indeed, those motivated by impression management
experienced less fulﬁllment of the need for autonomy than those who reported lower
impression management motives. This might occur because of external factors which,
although not forcing the employee to act in a particular way (e.g., engage in OCBI),
nonetheless exert an inﬂuence on the employee. Therefore, these behaviors which are
deﬁned as discretionary might nonetheless be performed to appeal to an external party.
This phenomenon seems to be an interesting area for future research. Specifically, to
what extent does the external pressure to engage in citizenship behaviors moderate the
beneﬁt of such behaviors?

Interestingly, however, the relational well-being beneﬁts of OCBI were greater
(i.e., had a more positive slope) for those high in impression management than for those
lower on impression management. Perhaps this is because coworkers see attempts at
OCBI by high impression managers as a genuine attempt to improve their image. Indeed,
perhaps perceiving that an employee just wants to do good because he is prosocial in
nature is less important than knowing that he is being authentic by trying to foster a good
image through the performance of citizenship behaviors. Thus, it appears that the
authenticity of the employee’s motive, even when that authenticity means that the
employee engages in citizenship behaviors for self-serving reasons, is more important

than the prosocial nature of the motivation. Kemis and Goldman (2006) describe various

116

forms of authenticity, with relational authenticity seeming particularly relevant for
coworker relationships. They argue that being authentic in one’s relationships with others
results in greater beneﬁts for interpersonal relationships, and this is what the present
study indicates. Therefore, another implication of this study is to support the notion that
authenticity in relationships plays a role in determining subsequent relational well-being,
and that this is the case even when the perceived motives behind citizenship behavior are
impression managing rather than prosocial.

Research on motives for helping was designed to examine predictors of prosocial
behaviors in various contexts; however, the objective of this study was to extend that
research by examining the differential effect of citizenship behaviors on various
outcomes as moderated by these motives. The ﬁndings of the study also point to an
additional issue relating motives to personal well-being. Specifically, results indicate that
employees who reported higher levels of prosocial value motives at time 1 were likely to
also report higher positive affect and lower negative affect at time 2. This suggests that
the motivation to act prosocially might stem from a dispositional tendency to help others.
And if these motives are found to be dispositional, with which other personalin factors
might they correlate? Additional research might ﬁnd that prosocial value motives are not
only related to the performance of interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors (whether
rated by coworkers or by the employee), but that they might also be related to
extraversion or agreeableness. Such research could contribute to our knowledge of how
personality inﬂuences the work domain by illustrating how motives predict work
behaviors, and how they relate to overall well—being, as a function of individual

dispositions.

117

Discussion for Relational Well-Being Model

The relational well-being portion of the model tested in this study examines the
manner in which interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors inﬂuence the exchange
relationships that exist among coworkers. The study examines the mediating inﬂuence of
coworker liking of and trust in the focal employee, with particular emphasis given to how
perceived employee motives moderate the strength and direction of the hypothesized
relationships.

This portion of the model was tested through a two-stage data collection
procedure in which responses were obtained from coworkers of each employee. These
coworkers rated the extent to which the employee engaged in interpersonally-directed
citizenship behaviors over a two-month span and also rated the motives for which the
employee engaged in such behaviors, and also rated their trust in and liking of the
employee. At a subsequent point in time (one to two weeks later) the coworkers
completed a measure of their exchange relationship with the employee.

The ﬁndings from the relational well-being portion of the model offer mixed
support for the hypotheses. First, consistent with the primary hypothesis in this portion of
the model, the data illustrate that time 1 ratings of interpersonally-directed citizenship
behaviors were strongly positively related to coworker exchange relationships rated at
time 2. Second, because of the signiﬁcant relationship between the citizenship behavior
and coworker exchange, it is meaningful to examine the possibility of mediators of the
relationship. Consistent with my predictions, over half of the effect of citizenship on

coworker exchange was mediated by coworker trust in and liking of the employee. This

118

helps explain at least two of the mechanisms through which coworker exchange
relationships form.

Third, the results of this study support the notion that citizenship behaviors would
differentially inﬂuence coworker exchange outcomes as a function of the motives which
coworkers perceived in the employee. Results indicate that employees who are perceived
as having higher prosocial value motives experience a stronger connection between
citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange than do employees perceived as having
lower prosocial value motives. In contrast, impression management motives did not
demonstrate a moderating effect on the relationship between interpersonally-directed
citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange.

Finally, the results fail to support the hypotheses that coworker trust in and liking
of the employee will be more strongly related to citizenship behaviors at low levels of
impression management and high levels of prosocial values motives. In fact, contrary to
my predictions, citizenship behaviors had a stronger positive relationship with trust when
prosocial value motives were rated as low, as compared to high; likewise, those who were
rated as having high impression management motives enjoyed a more positive
relationship between citizenship behaviors and both trust and liking as compared to those
rated low in impression management motives. I discuss these unexpected findings in
more detail below.

In additional analyses, I examined the implicit hypothesis that the moderated
effect between citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange would be mediated by trust
and liking, consistent with what Edwards and Lambert (2007) call a direct effect and ﬁrst

stage moderation model. The results offer support for the notion that trust and liking are

119

responsible for a portion of the effects of citizenship behaviors on coworker exchange at
varying levels of prosocial value motives. Interestingly, it appears that trust and liking
have a slight suppressing effect on the citizenship-exchange relationship. This is apparent
when noting that for employees rated high on prosocial motivation, the direct effects are
much higher than for those rated low on prosocial motivation. However, the indirect
effects for highly prosocial employees are lower than the indirect effects for those low on
prosocial motivation. This is because, contrary to my hypotheses, citizenship was more
positively related to trust under low levels of prosocial value motivation than under high
levels of prosocial value motivation.

Following a similar pattern, results indicate that the direct effect of citizenship on
coworker exchange under low impression management motivation is nearly 60% stronger
than the direct effect for those with high levels of impression management motivation. In
contrast, the indirect effect under low impression management motivation is
approximately 20% weaker than the indirect effect for those with high levels of
impression management motivation. This pattern of results reveals some interesting
possibilities as to the manner in which citizenship behaviors inﬂuence coworker
relationships, particularly as they relate to the trust that a coworker might place in another
employee, or the extent to which the coworker likes the employee.

Implications

The results of the relational well-being portion of this dissertation, which deal
with the “meso” level of prosocial behavior (Penner, Dovidio, Pilavin, & Schroeder,
2005), present several implications for management research and practice. First, the

quality of employee relational well-being can be enhanced through discretionary and

120

helpful behaviors directed at other employees. Consistent with the predictions of social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964), employees who provide their coworkers with assistance in
the workplace are more likely to develop strong relationships with those coworkers. This
ﬁnding can directly be applied to management phenomena such as newcomer
socialization; speciﬁcally, by giving new employees the opportunity to engage in helpful
behaviors toward their new coworkers, the employees are likely to develop stronger
relationships than those who are only expected to sit back and learn from their
colleagues. Such an approach is also worth considering when addressing the integration
of various teams or work groups, as might be the case when companies are acquired or
reorganized. As the employees of the distinct groups begin helping one another they are
likely to develop improving exchange relationships, thereby contributing to the overall
cohesiveness of the newly-(re)formed organization.

A second implication of the ﬁndings of the present study deals with the
mechanisms through which citizenship behaviors enhance coworker exchange
relationships. As was also suggested by Blau (1964), with recurring exchanges,
individuals are likely to develop the assurance that the other party will continue to
reciprocate. Additional exchanges provide increasing information about the exchange
partner’s typical manner of behaving, thereby providing a larger amount of information
on which to base one’s judgments about the individual. Findings from this study indicate
that, indeed, employees who provide their coworkers with resources (via OCBI) acquire
more trust from their coworkers and are generally more liked, and that these coworker
states are important factors in determining the employee’s future exchange relationships

with coworkers. Essentially, performing citizenship behaviors allows an employee to

121

show that he or she is trustworthy, which leads to the acquisition of greater trust and
subsequently leads to better coworker exchange. Again, managers interested in building
cohesive groups, teams, departments, or organizations would do well to consider the
extent to which coworkers are able to develop trust in one another, perhaps by providing
them with sufﬁcient opportunities to meaningfully interact (i.e., provide one another help
with work activities) and develop trust.

A third implication of these ﬁndings is that simply providing help is not always
enough to obtain the full beneﬁt of interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors. Indeed,
the examination of motives for providing this help (Rioux & Penner, 2001) indicate that
helping behaviors by employees perceived as being prosocially motivated receive a
premium in the market of coworker exchange. This seems relevant for research on
personality and self-presentation. It is not enough to be prosocially motivated, but it also
critical that others accurately perceive these prosocial motives in order for employees to
enjoy the full benefits of the behaviors for coworker exchange relationships. The
importance of making these motives evident to coworkers presents at least two streams of
future research on this topic. First, to what extent will employee emotional intelligence
play a role in maximizing the beneﬁt of citizenship behaviors? Perhaps those who are
more skilled at using their emotions to inﬂuence others (e. g., Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
2004) will also be more apt to convey their prosocial motivation to their coworkers. Or
perhaps the conveyance of these motives will depend more on emotional expressivity
(Friedman, Prince, Riggio, & DiMatteo, 1980). In either case, it is important to consider
the facility with which employees are able to make their favorably-viewed motives

known if they are to derive the maximum beneﬁt from helping behaviors.

122

 

A related stream of research deals with the perception of motives from the
perspective of the coworker. The scope of the present study did not address the manner in
which coworkers form their perceptions of employee motives, or coworkers’ bases for
attributing particular causes for employee behaviors. However, such an examination will
help disentangle the manner in which these behaviors impact relationships at work.
Indeed, although the ﬁndings of the study do not suggest that “no good deed goes
unpunished,” they do suggest that some good deeds are rewarded much more than others,
and that the extent of the beneﬁt depends on coworker perceptions of employee motives.
Therefore, what predicts the perception of these motives?

Attribution theory would suggest that coworkers will make favorable attributions
about the behaviors of employees with whom they hope to preserve relationships
(Holtzworth-Munroe & Jacobson, 1985). This might suggest that employees with whom
the coworker has a favorable relationship, and with whom the coworker hopes to have a
continuing relationship, will be viewed as more prosocial and less impression managing.
Following this line of thought, those attributed such motives would have better exchange
relationships with the particular coworker. Consistent with this, the results of the study
suggest that coworker perceptions of employee motives for helping are strongly related to
coworker exchange relationships (positively for prosocial value motives and negatively
for impression management motives), and the value of interpersonally-directed
citizenship behavior is particularly strong for those viewed as having favorable motives.
Despite these ﬁndings, this study does not address how coworkers arrive at their
perceptions of the employee’s behaviors; I encourage scholars to further study this

phenomenon in future research.

123

 

A fourth implication of the ﬁndings presented herein is that we need to better
understand how perceived motives inﬂuence the development of trust among coworkers.
Unexpected ﬁndings from the study suggest that those who are perceived as having high
prosocial value motives tend to be more trusted, but it is those who are lower on prosocial
value motives that derive greater increases in trust as a result of their citizenship
behaviors. Likewise, employees viewed as being more driven by impression management
are also less trusted. However, when these employees engage in helping behaviors, it
appears that trust in them accrues more rapidly than it would to the less impression-
managing peers. These surprising findings offer a starting point for future research to
examine the interpersonal processes behind these relationships.

Perhaps one explanation for this observation is that when coworkers receive
assistance from an employee at work, they recognize that they are engaging in social
exchange relationships. Consistent with social exchange theory, they implicitly
acknowledge that they will have a future opportunity to reciprocate the help received, and
will thus restore a sense of equity in the relationship (Blau, 1964). It appears that when
coworkers perceive the impression managing motives of their coworkers, all parties
implicitly agree to the underlying contract of reciprocity and social exchange. However,
perhaps when coworkers receive help from employees who appear to have no other
motive than to behave prosocially, the exchange leaves the coworker uneasy because he
or she is unsure of how to reciprocate or whether or not the employee understands or has
expectations of reciprocity. In this sense, perhaps prosocially-perceived helpers create

conﬂict because they refute norms of social exchange. This notion of countervailing

124

 

effects of motives and citizenship behaviors on social exchange and trust and liking is a
ﬁnding of considerable interest in this study and merits further investigation.

Another potential reason for the observed moderating inﬂuence of motives on the
relationship between citizenship behaviors and coworker trust might be due to ceiling
effects. For example, employees in this study who are viewed as having high prosocial
value motives are generally more trusted, whereas those who are perceived as having low
prosocial value motives are less trusted. Yet results indicate that those who are viewed as
less prosocially motivated derive greater beneﬁt from their citizenship behaviors. Perhaps
this is because citizenship behaviors provide information to coworkers that the employee
is making efforts to be trusted. Because the employee perceived as high in impression
management motivation or low in prosocial motivation is, on average, less trusted than
low impression-managing, highly-prosocial counterparts, there is more room for
increased trust. Therefore, the performance of citizenship behaviors by the employee
provides additional information to inﬂuence coworker judgments of the employee, with

increasing levels of citizenship behavior resulting in higher levels of trust.

This observation of ceiling effects related to the performance of citizenship

behaviors is similar to the ceiling effect that agreeable individuals experience with

relation to their coworkers. Ilies et al. (2006) found that highly agreeable individuals (one
standard deviation above the mean on the trait) exhibited higher levels of OCB, but the

day to day performance of OCB did not vary as a function of varying levels of positive

affect. In contrast, those who were less agreeable (one standard deviation below the mean
on the trait) engaged in OCB, on average, less often than the highly agreeable

counterparts, but this relationship was strongly positive such that their affective state was

125

 

a strong determinant of whether or not they would engage in OCB (i.e., the relationship
between positive affect and OCB was strongly positive for this group). The study by Ilies
et al. therefore shows that the strength of the relationship between daily affective and
attitudinal states and daily OCB is moderated by individual traits, with ceiling effects for
those high in agreeableness. The present study complements these ﬁndings by illustrating
that those who are perceived as more prosocial and less impression managing already

obtain high levels of trust from their coworkers. In contrast, employees who are viewed

 

as having impression managing motives or low prosocial value motives might have
greater potential to develop trust because they start from a lower baseline. Indeed, the
ﬁndings suggest that it is those employees low on prosocial value motives and high on

impression management motives that derive greater trust-building beneﬁts of

interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors.

In summary, these ﬁndings suggest that perceived motives are an important
predictor of how employees are viewed by their coworkers. As one might imagine, those
who are viewed as being more prosocial are more favorably viewed by their counterparts
at work. However, another important implication of this set of ﬁndings is that citizenship
behaviors might provide a mechanism for repairing or enhancing coworker trust,
especially for those employees who are viewed as less prosocial. This suggests that
employees who might be afforded lower levels of trust by their peers, primarily due to the
employee’s disposition or coworker perceptions of the employee, might be able to use
citizenship behaviors as an instrumental tool to establish higher levels of trust. Indeed,
the discretionary nature of citizenship behaviors could make them well-suited to goal

setting, with these goals being particularly important for those who would otherwise be

126

less trusted by their peers. That discretionary behaviors seem to provide a good

application of goal-setting practices, suggests that training or goal-setting mechanisms
might be used to enhance or develop trust among employees, speciﬁcally by encouraging
employees who are perceived as less prosocially motivated to engage in citizenship
behaviors.

Finally, this study contributes to research on organizational behavior, and
particularly citizenship behaviors, by illustrating one potential reason why citizenship
behaviors might enhance organizational performance. Because of the relationship-

enhancing effects of interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors, it is reasonable to
expect that increasingly cohesive and trusting relationships would lead to smoother-
running organizations, which could subsequently lead to enhanced organizational
effectiveness. Indeed, this study illustrates that one reason why citizenship results in
better exchange relationships is due to the trust and liking that are facilitated as a result of
citizenship behaviors. Because this study did not address performance outcomes, future
research should examine performance outcomes of citizenship behaviors, while
addressing the mediating effects of coworker relationships. Such an approach would be
consistent with research illustrating the beneﬁcial effects of team cohesion on
performance (e.g., Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003). A follow up research study
could be designed to examine interactions among team members, including the
discretionary behaviors in which they engage to help their teammates. By aggregating
these measures of citizenship, and also examining the quality of relationships among
coworkers, one could identify some of the mechanisms through which citizenship leads

to greater organizational performance through its effects on coworker relationships.

127

 

A further variation on this approach could be taken by considering networks of
relationships at work. Speciﬁcally, scholars could examine how citizenship behaviors act
as a vehicle for establishing more central network positions in the workplace. In other
words, this study could provide further support for the notion that employees use
citizenship behaviors to bolster their standing in the social network by using these
behaviors to develop favorable exchange relationships, thus becoming and integral part of
the work processes of many coworkers. To the extent to which engaging in such
behaviors inﬂuences an employee’s centrality in the social network, the employee might
experience increased personal beneﬁts due to the greater access he or she has to resources
such as mentoring, information or opportunity (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001).

Limitations and Future Research

The study presented in this paper has various limitations that are worth noting.
First, the data for the study were cross-sectional in that they examined only a slice of
employee-coworker interactions and reactions. Therefore, the study cannot addresses
relationships as they develop and unfold across time. This shortcoming is important to
note, especially given the likelihood that citizenship behaviors directed at coworkers are
likely to elicit responses that would in turn inﬂuence the relationship. Indeed, the study
examines the extent to which coworker exchange relationships are related to
interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors. It could be expected, and in fact, is
implicit in the model, that increasingly strong coworker exchange relationships would
lead to subsequent citizenship behaviors directed toward the other party. In this sense, the
model presented lends itself to a non-recursive examination in which citizenship

behaviors lead to enhanced coworker exchange relationships, which in turn lead to

128

 

additional interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors. Such an approach is consistent
with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1961), which argues that the exchange
of goods or services, either tangible or intangible, serve to reinforce and foster social
relationships. As Ilies et al. (2006) demonstrated, employees’ citizenship behaviors
ﬂuctuate from day to day, in part as a function of affective and attitudinal states. Given

these findings that citizenship behaviors ﬂuctuate across time, and also given the fact that

 

relationships develop over time, I suggest that future research examine the manner in
which relationships develop as coworkers engage in citizenship behaviors, and how the

quality of these relationships varies as employees engage in varying levels of

interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors.

One of these approaches would be to determine a baseline relationship level
among coworkers by assessing, for example, their level of coworker exchange
relationships at a point in time. Then researchers could assess the extent to which the
coworkers engage in various citizenship behaviors and concurrently assess the extent to

which the coworker exchange relationships vary across these time periods. With repeated
assessment, the researchers could determine the strength with which citizenship and other
behaviors inﬂuence or dictate the strength of the coworker exchange relationships. Not
only would this design allow for an examination of the development of the coworker
exchange relationship across time, but it would also allow for an examination of how
ﬂuctuations in citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange relationships covary over
time. As has been shown in a growing body of literature, employee emotions, cognitions,

and behaviors exhibit not only between-person differences, but also substantial within-

person differences (e.g., Ilies & Judge, 2002; Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999). Therefore,

129

by taking in situ assessments of employee behaviors and coworker attitudes toward those

employees, scholars can more clearly explain the relationship between employee
behaviors and relational well-being outcomes. Such an approach provides an exciting
area for future research.

Another, perhaps simpler, approach would be to assess groups of coworkers at the
moment when they are introduced to, or begin working with, one another. This would
allow the researchers to assume that no previous relationship exists, thereby allowing a
study of what predicts the development of coworker exchange relationships. Indeed,
Mehra, Kilduff, and Brass (2001) suggest that social networks derive in part from the
extent to which individuals like one another or are similar to one another. Therefore, to
the extent to which performing citizenship behaviors directed towards a coworker
inﬂuences that coworker’s liking of the employee, these behaviors are likely to lead to
the employee obtaining a more central or inﬂuential position in the social network,
resulting in enhanced coworker exchange relationships. I suggest that future research
examine the way in which citizenship behaviors inﬂuence the development of broader

social networks. Indeed, by studying groups beginning at the moment in which they are

formed, this approach becomes eminently feasible.

In addition to measuring behaviors and states as they occur in the work place, it
would be interesting to study how structural characteristics of the job or setting in which
the coworkers interact might inﬂuence the nature of the relationships among citizenship
behaviors and relational outcomes. For example, will citizenship behaviors have the same
impact when performed in computer mediated teams? And with increasing globalization,

what role could citizenship behaviors play in developing relationships among employees

130

 

when those employees are distributed across the globe? Moreover, what role will cultural
differences play in this process? Certainly these questions offer plenty of opportunity for
scholars to further our understanding of these discretionary and interpersonally-directed
behaviors at work.

Given that many of the hypothesized relationships in the personal well-being
portion of the model were not supported, the question arises as to whether these ﬁndings
are due to the conceptual infeasibility that citizenship behaviors could be related to
personal well-being, or to the inappropriate match between conceptualization of the
relationships and the operationalization and timing of measurement of the relationships. I
will ﬁrst consider the possibility of poor conceptualization. A substantial amount of past
research has connected citizenship behaviors to components of well-being (e.g., positive
affect, Williams & Shiaw, 1999; job satisfaction, Organ, 1988). Furthermore, affective
states and job attitudes have been shown to ﬂuctuate across time (e. g., Ilies & Judge,
2002; Weiss et al., 1999). This presents the possibility that there might be a dynamic
connection between citizenship behaviors and well-being across time. Moreover, the
ﬁnding that the fulﬁllment of basic psychological needs was indeed related to well-being
states (e. g., fulﬁllment of the need for autonomy was related to affective states) suggests
that portions of the model are supported and are consistent with past research. On the
other hand, given the unexpected moderation found in the relational well-being portion of
the model, it appears that the interaction of citizenship behaviors and the motives to
engage in them might be more complex than I originally anticipated. Therefore, I
acknowledge that more conceptualization should be performed as to the relationships

among citizenship, motives, and both personal and relational well-being.

131

 

Methodological shortcomings of this study also suggest that the lack of observed
relationships, particularly with regard to the personal well-being half of the model, might
be due to inappropriate timing and frequency of measurement. Research suggests that
there are many factors that determine employee well-being. Therefore, designing a study
to capture changes in well-being at two points in time, over a two week span, with
citizenship as the only predictor may have been too coarse of an approach. Indeed, it is
quite possible that the well-being beneﬁts derived from the performance of such
behaviors may have dissipated by the time of the second measurement. Perhaps a more
appropriate design would utilize ecological momentary assessment (EMA; Beal & Weiss,
2003) in which employees provide ratings of their well-being states at several points
throughout a work week, or even a work day, and predict these states with coworker
reports of employee citizenship behaviors. This approach would have allowed for a study
of the ﬂuctuations in well-being as a function of ﬂuctuations in behaviors across time.
Indeed, contemporary research on well-being in the workplace has provided evidence that
employee well-being states can vary from day to day and even from hour to hour (Ilies et
al., 2007; Wagner et al., 2008; Watson, 2000). Because of the difﬁculties of obtaining
matched coworker reports of employee citizenship behaviors at multiple points on
multiple days, it might be feasible to study employees in a setting where employee
behaviors are naturally tracked by the job. For example, perhaps employees working in a
call center could be studied, with the performance of their own calls as in-role
performance, and assistance to other employees marked as citizenship behaviors. Or
perhaps a design similar to that used by Trougakos, Beal, Dalal, Sundie, and Weiss

(2008) would be useful. These researchers had restaurant customers rate various

132

 

behaviors by their server, and servers answer various questions regarding their attitudes
about the job and their affective states at particular moments in time. By utilizing such a
design researchers can examine ﬂuctuations in behaviors and well-being states across
time, while also avoiding the problems associated with same-source responses. I
encourage further study of interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors and their well-
being outcomes using these types of rigorous methods.

Another question for future research would be to identify determinants of
coworker perceptions of employee motives. Indeed, despite the positive connection
between perceived prosocial value motives, and the negative relationship between
perceived impression management motives and coworker exchange relationships, the
interactions of perceived motives and citizenship as predictors of trust and liking are
somewhat puzzling. For instance, why would coworkers experience a stronger
relationship between citizenship behaviors and trust for those whom they view as less
prosocially motivated, or more impression management motivated? One could imagine
that trust would go hand in hand with coworker exchange relationships, and would thus
demonstrate a similar relationship to predictors and moderators, yet this was not the case.
Future research should further explore the reasons for which motives and citizenship
behaviors enhance coworker exchange, even though they exert opposite effects on
coworker trust and liking of the employee.

Finally, the discussion of the instrumental utility of citizenship behaviors brings
up another point for consideration. If employees are encouraged to engage in citizenship
behaviors, to what extent are these behaviors discretionary? This consideration builds

upon the debate among scholars as to the differences between in-role and extra-role

133

behavior (Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995) or task performance and contextual
performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). If citizenship behaviors are encouraged by
management, do these behaviors cease to be deﬁned as citizenship or extra-role, and
instead come to be considered part of one’s job or in-role behavior? Likewise, how does
creating an environment that might facilitate employee interaction and helping behaviors
inﬂuence the relationships among citizenship, trust, liking, and coworker exchange
relationships?

Moreover, even if citizenship behaviors are not formally required by employees’
jobs, they still might be faced with pressure from their environment to perform
citizenship behaviors. I would expect that performing discretionary behaviors motivated
by such factors would yield lower levels of well-being, due in part to the harmful effect
that such pressure could have on one’s sense of autonomy. Of course, in this study I
failed to ﬁnd a connection between citizenship behaviors and autonomy, so perhaps this
connection is not warranted. However, I suggest that future research consider the impact
that the pressure to perform citizenship behaviors has on the relationships among these
behaviors and well-being outcomes.

Conclusion

The objective of this study was to extend research on organizational citizenship
behavior by examining the outcomes of interpersonally-directed citizenship behaviors.
Speciﬁcally, by drawing upon self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) the study
examined how employee citizenship behaviors fulﬁll employees’ basic psychological
needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence, and how the fulﬁllment of these needs

in turn relates to employee personal well-being. The study also examined the inﬂuence of

134

 

citizenship behaviors on relational well-being, or the quality of the exchange relationship
that exists between employees and coworkers.

Through a two-stage data collection procedure, I found mixed support for the
hypothesized relationships, with the majority of support establishing the connection
between citizenship behaviors and relational well-being. The ﬁndings also indicate the
importance of considering experienced and perceived motives as moderators of the
hypothesized relationships. Furthermore, these interactions presented some unexpected
ﬁndings, thereby providing several lines of inquiry for future research. I therefore
encourage researchers to further extend our understanding of the interplay between
motives and behaviors as predictors of employee personal and relational well-being at

work.

135

APPENDICES

136

Appendix A: Summary of Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors will be
related to employee personal well-being, demonstrating a positive relationship
with (a) positive affect and (b) job satisfaction, and a negative relationship with
(c) negative affect.

Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and positive affect will be mediated by fulﬁllment of the
employee’s needs for (a) relatedness, (b) autonomy, and (c) competence.

Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and job satisfaction will be mediated by fulﬁllment of the
employee’s needs for (a) relatedness, (b) autonomy, and (c) competence.

Hypothesis 4: The negative relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and negative affect will be mediated by fulﬁllment of the
employee’s needs for (a) relatedness, (b) autonomy, and (c) competence.

Hypothesis 5: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and (a) positive affect and (b) job satisfaction, and the
negative relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship
behavior and (c) negative affect, will be moderated by the employee’s prosocial
value motives, such that employees with higher prosocial value motives will have
stronger relationships than employees with lower prosocial value motives.

Hypothesis 6: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and (a) positive affect and (b) job satisfaction, and the
negative relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship
behavior and (c) negative affect, will be moderated by the employee’s impression
management motives, such that employees with higher impression management
motives will have stronger positive relationships than employees with lower
impression management motives.

Hypothesis 7: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and the fulﬁllment of the needs for (a) relatedness, (b)
autonomy, and (c) competence, will be moderated by the employee’s prosocial
value motives, such that employees with higher prosocial value motives will have
stronger positive relationships than employees with lower prosocial value
motives.

Hypothesis 8: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and the fulﬁllment of the needs for (a) relatedness, (b)
autonomy, and (c) competence, will be moderated by the employee’s impression
management motives, such that employees with higher impression management

137

 

motives will have stronger positive relationships than employees with lower
impression management motives.

Hypothesis 9: Employee interpersonally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors
will be positively related to coworker exchange (CWX).

Hypothesis 10: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange will be mediated by (a) coworker
trust in the employee and (b) coworker liking of the employee.

Hypothesis 11: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange will be moderated by coworker
attributions of the employee’s prosocial value motives, such that employees
attributed with higher prosocial value motives will have a stronger positive
relationship than employees attributed with lower prosocial value motives.

Hypothesis 12: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and coworker exchange will be moderated by coworker
attributions of the employee’s impression management motives, such that
employees attributed with impression management motives will have a weaker
positive relationship than employees attributed with lower impression
management motives.

Hypothesis 13: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and the mediators (a) trust in the employee and (b) liking of
the employee will be moderated by coworker attributions of the employee’s
prosocial value motives, such that employees attributed with higher prosocial
value motives will have stronger positive relationships than employees attributed
with lower prosocial value motives.

Hypothesis 14: The positive relationship between interpersonally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors and the mediators (a) trust in the employee and (b) liking of
the employee will be moderated by coworker attributions of the employee’s
impression management motives, such that employees attributed with higher
impression management motives will have weaker positive relationships than
employees attributed with lower impression management motives.

138

Appendix B: Survey Measures Used in Field Study

Employee-Rated Time 1
Opportunities for interaction
On average, how often do you have opportunities to interact with other employees, or
help/receive help from other employees?
I = once per year or less
2 = more than once per year
3 = more than once per month
4 = more than once per week
5 = about once a day
6 = several times per day
7 = hourly or more often

Motives for OCB
During the course of the workday people often engage in prosocial or helpful behaviors.
These behaviors are not a required part of the job and they are not formally rewarded
(e. g., more money). Yet these behaviors are very important and help the organization
function smoothly. Examples of such behavior include:

' helping co—workers with a heavy workload

I Getting involved to beneﬁt others

- Helping new employees “learn the ropes”

People are motivated to engage in these kinds of behaviors by many different things.
Below is a list of motives that may inﬂuence people to engage in these behaviors. For
each motive listed, please indicate HOW IMPORTANT that motive is for YOU to
engage in these kinds of behaviors at work.

I = not at all important, 7 = extremely important

Prosocial value motives

Because I feel it is important to help those in need.
Because I am concerned about other people’s feelings.
To have fun with my co—workers.

Because I like interacting with my co-workers.
Because I want to help my co-workers in any way I can.
Because I can put myself in other people’s shoes.
Because I believe in being courteous to others.
Because it is easy for me to be helpful.

To get to know my co-workers better.

To be friendly with others.

Impression management motives
To stay out of trouble.

To look better than my co-workers.
Because I want a raise.

139

To avoid a reprimand from my boss.
To look like I am busy.

Because rewards are important to me.
To impress my co-workers.

Because 1 fear appearing irresponsible.
To avoid looking lazy.

To avoid looking bad in front of others.

F ulﬁllment of Need for Relatedness
Think of times over the past two months when you have assisted a coworker, listened to
a coworker’s problems, helped with a heavy workload, or done some other behavior to
beneﬁt a coworker that was not explicitly required by your job.

= not at all, 7 = extremely

After doing these things, I...

felt close and connected with my coworkers.

felt understood and appreciated by my coworkers.
felt a sense of relatedness with my coworkers.

F ulﬁllment of Need for Competence

Think of times over the past two months when you have assisted a coworker, listened to
a coworker’s problems, helped with a heavy workload, or done some other behavior to
beneﬁt a coworker that was not explicitly required by your job.

1 = not at all, 7 = extremely

After doing these things, I. ..
felt successful at work.

felt I was working effectively.
felt capable as an employee.

Fulﬁllment of Need for Autonomy

Think of times over the past two months when you have assisted a coworker, listened to
a coworker’s problems, helped with a heavy workload, or done some other behavior to
beneﬁt a coworker that was not explicitly required by your job.

I = not at all, to 7 = completely

I engaged in these behaviors over the past two months because...
something about my situation forced me to do it.

I made myself do it, to avoid anxiety or guilt.

interesting or not, I felt that it expressed my true values.

I did it purely for the interest and enjoyment in doing it.

140

 

Coworker—Rated Time I

Interpersonally directed organizational citizenship behavior (OCBI)

Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements regarding
behavior of the employee you are rating over the past two months.

I = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree

Over the past two months this employee has...

Helped others who have been absent.

Helped others who have had heavy workloads.

Assisted supervisor with his/her work (when not asked).
Taken time to listen to coworkers’ problems and won'ies.
Gone out of his/her way to help new employees.

Taken a personal interest in other employees.

Passed along information to coworkers.

Motives for OCB
During the course of the workday people often engage in prosocial or helpful behaviors.
These behaviors are not a required part of the job and they are not formally rewarded
(e. g., more money). Yet these behaviors are very important and help the organization
function smoothly. Examples of such behavior include:

I helping co-workers with a heavy workload

I Getting involved to beneﬁt others

I Helping new employees “learn the ropes”

People are motivated to engage in these kinds of behaviors by many different things.
Below is a list of motives that may inﬂuence people to engage in these behaviors. For
each motive listed, please indicate HOW IMPORTANT you believe that motive is for
the employee you are rating, when he or she engages in these kinds of behaviors at
work (focusing on the last two months).

Prosocial value motives

Because s/he feels it is important to help those in need.
Because s/he is concerned about other people’s feelings.
To have fun with her/his co-workers.

Because s/he likes interacting with her/his co-workers.
Because s/he wants to help her/his co-workers in any way s/he can.
Because s/he can put her/himself in other people’s shoes.
Because s/he believes in being courteous to others.
Because it is easy for her/him to be helpful.

To get to know her/his co-workers better.

To be friendly with others.

Impression management motives
To stay out of trouble.

141

 

To look better than her/his co—workers.
Because s/he wants a raise.

To avoid a reprimand from her/his boss.
To look like s/he is busy.

Because rewards are important to her/him.
To impress her/his co-workers.

Because s/he fears appearing irresponsible.
To avoid looking lazy.

To avoid looking bad in front of others.

Trust

Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about your
relationship with the employee you are rating.

I = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

Cognition-based trust

This person approaches his/her job with professionalism and dedication.

Given this person's track record, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence and
preparation for the job.

Most people, even those who aren't close friends of this individual, trust and respect
him/her as a coworker.

Other work associates of mine who must interact with this individual consider him/her to
be trustworthy.

I can rely on this person not to make my job more difﬁcult by careless work.

If people knew more about this individual and his/her background, they would be more
concerned and monitor his/her performance more closely.

Liking

Please respond to each of the following questions related to how you view the employee
you are rating.

How much do you like this coworker?

I = I don’t like this coworker at all, 7 = I like this coworker very much

I get along well with this coworker.
Working with this person is a pleasure.

I think this coworker would make a good friend.
I = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

142

Employee-Rated Time 2

Positive Aﬁect and Negative Aﬁect

Please indicate the extent to which you have felt each of the following adjectives over the
past two months.

I = slightly or not at all, to 7 = very much

Active
Afraid
Alert
Ashamed
Attentive
Determined
Distressed
Enthusiastic
Excited
Guilty
Hostile
Inspired
Interested
Irritable
Jittery
Nervous
Proud
Scared
Strong
Upset

Job Satisfaction

Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements regarding
your job.

I = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree

Over the past two months I have found real enjoyment in my work.

Most days over the past two months I have felt enthusiastic about my work.

During the past two months I have felt fairly satisfied with my present job.

Each day of work over the past two months has seemed like it would never end. (reverse-
coded) .

During the last two months I have considered my job rather unpleasant. (reverse-coded)

143

 

C oworker-Rated Time 2

C oworker Exchange
Please answer each question below related to your interactions with the employee you are
rating.

Do you know where you stand with this co-worker?
1 = rarely, 7 = very often

How well does this co-worker understand your job problems and needs?
1 = not a bit, 7 = a great deal

What are the chances that this co-worker would use his/her power to help you solve
problems in your work?
1 = none, 7 = very high

What are the chances that this co-worker would “bail you out,” at his or her expense?
1 = none, 7 = very high

I have enough confidence in this co-worker that I would defend or justify his/her decision
(to a superior) if he/she were not present to do so.

1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree

How would you characterize your working relationship with this co-worker?
I = extremely ineffective, 7 = extremely eﬂective

144

 

 

REFERENCES

145

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.

Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance,4 , 142-175.

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

Anda, R., Williamson, D., Jones, D., MacEra, C., Baker, E., Glassman, A., & Marks, J.
(1993). Depressed affect, hopelessness, and the risk of ischemic heart disease in a
cohort of US. adults. Epidemiology, 4, 285-294.

Barnes, C. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Wagner, D. T., DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., &
Schwind, K. M. (2008). Harmful help: The costs of backing up behavior in teams.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 529-539.

Barsade, S. G., Brief, A. P., & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in
organizational behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.),
Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 3—52). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The
relationship between employee affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of ,
Management Journal, 26, 587-595.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 11 7,

497-529.

Beal, D. J ., & Weiss, H. M. (2003). Methods of ecological momentary assessment in
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 440-464.

Beal, D. J ., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and
performance in groups: A meta-analytic clariﬁcation of construct relationships.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004.

Blau, P. M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Power and exchange in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

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

146

 

actors? Academy of Management Review, 24, 82-98.

Bolino, M. C., Tumley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the
creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27,
505-522.

Bono, J ., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the
motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, 554-571.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual

performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance,
10, 99-109.

Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality
predictors of citizenship performance. lntemational Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9, 52-69.

Brayﬁeld, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 35, 307-311.

Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing
two perspectives of “people wor ”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17-39.

Brown, S. L., Nesse, R. M., Vinokur, A. D., & Smith, D. M. (2003). Providing social
support may be more beneﬁcial than receiving it: Results from a prospective
study of mortality. Psychological Science, 14, 320-327.

Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J .E., and Quinn, RE. (2003). An introduction to positive
organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds),
Positive Organizational Scholarship, (pp. 3—13). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer
performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 591-607.

Cohen, A., Doveh, E., & Nahum-Shani, I. (2009). Testing agreement for multi-item
scales with the indices rWG(J) and ADM(J). Organizational Research Methods,
12, 148-164.

Cummins, R. C. (1972). Leader-member relations as a moderator of the effects of leader
behavior and attitude. Personnel Psychology, 25, 655-660.

Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational
citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 1241-1255.

147

 

in...

 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R . M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. Plenum Press: New York.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, I I, 227-268.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work
organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580-590.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R . M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 627-668.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 627-668.

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and
mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis.
Psychological Methods, 12, 1-22.

Erickson, R. J. & C. Ritter, C. (2001). Emotional labor, burnout, and inauthenticity: Does
gender matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 146 - 163.

Evans, M. G. (1985). A monte carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in
moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 36, 305-323.

Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. F., & 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 (pp. 231-252). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

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.

Flynn, F. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity
and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of
Management Journal, 46, 539-553.

Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 30, 737-750.

Flynn, F. J ., & Brockner, J. (2003). It’s different to give than to receive: Predictors of

148

 

 

givers’ and receivers’ reactions to favor exchange. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 1034-1045.

Friedman, H. S., Prince, L. M., Riggio, R. E., & DiMatteo, M. R. (1980). Understanding
and assessing nonverbal expressiveness: The affect communication test. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 333-351.

Gerard, H. B. (1954). The anchorage of opinions in face-to-face groups. Human
Relations, 7, 313-325.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange
theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-
844.

Goranson, R. E., & Berkowitz, L. (1966). Responsibility and responsibility reactions
prior to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 227-232.

Graen, G.B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25

years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6,
219-247.

Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial ﬁre? Motivational

synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 48-58.

Greenberg, M. S., & Frisch, D. M. (1972). Effect of intentionality on willingness to
reciprocate a favor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 99-111.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental
and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 890-898.

Grolnick, W. 8., Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). The inner resources for school
achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517.

Hackett, R. D., Farh, J .-L., Song, L. J ., & Lapierre, L. M. (2003). LMX and
organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the links within and across
Western and Chinese samples. In G. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity: LMX
leadership—The series, (vol. 1, pp. 219-263). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Harrell, A. M., & Stahl, M. J. (1981). A behavioral decision theory approach for

measuring McClelland’s trichotomy of needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66,
242-247.

149

 

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1985). Causal attributions of married
couples: When do they search for causes? What do they conclude when they do?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1398-1412.

Homans, C. G. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63,
597-606.

Homans, C. G. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World.

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.

Hurtz, G. M. & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.

Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & Ryan R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor
ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job

satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 1789-1805.

Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2002). Understanding the dynamic relationships among
pesonailty, mood, and job satisfaction: A ﬁeld experience sampling study.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1119-1139.

Ilies, R., Fulrner, 1., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (in press). Personality and
citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and
citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-
277.

llies, R., Schwind, K. M., Wagner, D. T., Johnson, M., DeRue, D. S. & Ilgen, D. R.
(2007). When can employees have a family life? The effects of daily workload

and affect on work-family conﬂict and social behaviors at home. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 1368-1379.

Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and

experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 561-575.

150

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). r-sub(wg): An assessment of within-
group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.

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, 808-815.

J ones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Jones. E. E., & Pittman. T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-
presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self, (pp. 231-
263). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. ( 1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York:
Wiley.

Katz. D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science.
9, 131-133.

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 31, 457-501.

Kemis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of
authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
38, 283-357.

Kleiboer, A. M., Kuijer, R. G., Hox, J. J., Schreurs, K. M. G., & Bensing, J. M. (2006).
Receiving and providing support in couples dealing with multiple sclerosis: A
diary study using an equity perspective. Personal Relationships, 13, 485-501.

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.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional

model of helping in the context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26,
67-84.

Levin, 1., & Stokes, J. P. (1989). Dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Role of
negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 752-758.

Liang, J ., Krause, N. M., & Bennett, J. M. (2001). Social exchange and well-being: Is
giving better than receiving? Psychology and Aging, 16, 511-523.

Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures.

151

 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616-628.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). Conﬂict, frustration, and the theory of threat. Journal of Abnormal
Social Psychology, 38, 81-86.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory,
ﬁndings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197-215.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for

interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
24-59.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand.

McClelland, D. C., & Winter, D. G. (1969). Motivating economic achievement. New
York: Free Press.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-
monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46, 121-146.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in
personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader-member
exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance inﬂuence leader and

member perspective over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 108, 256-266.

Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-
perforrnance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2, 46-53.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior - The Good Soldier
Syndrome. (lst ed.). Lexington, Massachusetts/1‘ oronto: D.C. Heath and
Company.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time.
Human Performance, 10, 85-97.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

152

 

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 755-
802.

Orr, J. M, Sackett, P. R., & Mercer, M. (1989). The role of prescribed and nonprescribed

behaviors in estimating the dollar value of performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 34-40.

Park, G., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). OCB and motivational ﬁt: Effects on participant affect
and satisfaction. Working paper, Michigan State University.

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial
behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365—392.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. (1989). A second generation measure of
organizational citizenship behavior. Working paper, Indiana University at
Bloomington.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Fetter, R. (1993). Substitutes for leadership and
the management of professional. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 1-4-4.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Academy of Management Journal, 88, 879-903.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000).
Organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review of the theoretical and

empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management,
26, 513-563.

Rauch, A. J. & Frese, M. (2007). Born to be an entrepreneur? Revisting the personality
approach to entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The
psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 41-65). Mahawah: NJ: Erlbaum.

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J ., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. Daily well-
being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419-435.

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J ., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-
being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419-435.

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

Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes.
Journal of Personality, 63, 397-427.

153

 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55, 68'78.

Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective
vitality as a dynamic reﬂection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529-
565.

Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L. (1996). All goals are not created
equal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals and their regulation. In P.
M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition
and motivation to behavior (pp. 7-26). New York: Guilford Press.

Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 4, 99-104.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2000). Interpersonal ﬂourishing: A positive health agenda for
the new millennium. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 30-44.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange

(LMX) research: A comporehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-
analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63-113.

Schwartz, C. E., & Sendor, R. M. (1999). Helping others helps oneself: Response shift
effects in peer support. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1563-1575.

Scott, B. M. (2007). Employee popularity: Its nature, measurement, and organizational
relevance. Unpublished dissertation completed at the University of Florida

Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making
research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118—135.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of success.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219-237.

Sheldon, K. M, & Elliott, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing
autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and
attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546-557.

Sheldon, K. M, & Elliott, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal
well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 482-497.

Sheldon, K. M, & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the
pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and

154

 

Social Psychology, 80, 152-165.

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of
personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531-
543.

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day?
Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270—1279.

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day?
Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270—1279.

Sherony, K. M., Green, S. P. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between
coworkers, leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied
Psychology 87, 542-548.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.

Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez, J. 1., O’Driscoll, M., Sparks, K., Bemin, P., et al.
(2002). Locus of control and well-being at work: How generalizable are western
ﬁndings? Academy of Management Journal, 45, 435-468.

Spitzmuller, M., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Expanding the criterion domain: Consequences
of helping on individual well-being and adjustment. Part of the Symposium:
Beyond performance: Non-traditional consequences of helping behavior for the
helper, Van Dyne, L. and Spitzmuller, M. (Chairs).

Spitzmuller, M., Van Dyne, L., & Ilies, R. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior: A
review and extension of its nomological network. In C. L. Cooper & J. Barling
(Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (Ch. 6, pp. 106-132). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strutton, D., & Pelton, L. E. (1998). Effects of ingratiation on lateral relationship quality
within sales team settings. Journal of Business Research, 43, 1-12.

Tepper, B. J ., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J ., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the
relationships between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow

employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455-465.

Tesser, A., Gatewood, R., & Driver, M. (1968). Some determinants of gratitude. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 233-236.

Thibaut, J. W., & Riecken, H. W. (1955). Some determinants and consequences of the

155

perception of social causality. Journal of Personality, 24, 113-33.

Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 42, 115-131.

Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J ., Dalal, R. S., Sundie, J. M., & Weiss, H. M. (2008).
Dynamics of employee emotion regulation strategies on customer related
outcomes. Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA.

Tse, H. H. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2008). A study of exchange and emotions in team
member relationships. Group and Organization Management, 33, 194-215.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit
of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in
Organizational Behavior, 17, 215-285.

Vella, M. (2008, April 28). White-collar workers shoulder together—Like it or not.
Businessweek, 58.

Venkataramani, V., Dalal R. S. (2007). Who helps and harms whom? Relational

antecedents of interpersonal helping and harming in organizations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 952-966.

Wagner, D. T. & Van Dyne, L. (2008, August). Helping peers: Contrasting effects for
minority versus majority helpers. Part of the Symposium: Beyond performance:
Non-traditional consequences of helping behavior for the helper, Van Dyne, L.
and Spitzmuller, M. (Chairs).

Wagner, D. T., Ilies, R., Wilson, K. S., Johnson, M., DeRue, D. S. & Ilgen, D. R. (2008).
Flow at work and basic psychological needs: Effects on daily well-being. Working
paper, Michigan State University.

Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford Press.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative
affect schedule—expanded form. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.

Wayne, J ., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Inﬂuence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in
supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and ﬁeld study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499.

Wayne, S. J ., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on
employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations,

46, 1431-1440.

Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects

156

of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in
affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 78, 1-24.

Williams, L. J ., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors.
Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

Williams, S., & Shiaw, W. T. (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The
effects of positive affect on organizational citizenship behavior intentions.
Journal of Psychology, 133, 656-668.

Winter, D. G. (1996). Personality: Analysis and interpretation of lives. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). J ob satisfaction and psychological well-being as
nonadditive predictors of workplace turnover. Journal of Management, 33, 141-
160.

Yun, S., Takeuchi, R., & Liu, W. (2007). Employee self-enhancement motives and job
performance behaviors: Investigating the moderating effects of employee role

ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 745-756.

157