Academy of Management Journal 2007, Vol. 50, No. 6, 14811494.

DOES PREVALENCE MITIGATE RELEVANCE? THE MODERATING EFFECT OF GROUP-LEVEL OCB ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE
WILLIAM H. BOMMER Fresno State University ERICH C. DIERDORFF ROBERT S. RUBIN DePaul University
This article explores multilevel relationships between group-level OCB, individuallevel OCB, and work performance. We also discuss conceptualizing OCB with regard to context and multiple levels of analysis. We hypothesize that group-level OCB moderates the relationship between individual-level OCB and job performance. Results based on 100 work groups in a manufacturing firm indicate that group-level OCB significantly moderated the relationship between individual-level OCB and job performance. Comparing contexts in which group-level OCB was rare with those in which it was prevalent, we found that high individual-level OCB yielded greater significant increases in job performance ratings when group-level OCB was rare.

It has long been recognized that organizations desire employees who engage in cooperative and helpful behavior that goes beyond formal job requirements (Barnard, 1938; Katz, 1964). Organ defined the essence of this behavior as discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization (1988: 4). Multiple terms have been used to describe such behavior (e.g., prosocial behavior [Brief & Motowidlo, 1986]; contextual performance [Borman & Motowidlo, 1993]; organizational spontaneity [George & Brief, 1992]), and scholarly interest in this general tendency to be cooperative at work has significantly proliferated in the past three decades. Indeed, since Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) and Bateman and Organ (1983) proffered the construct of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), no fewer than 140 papers have been published on this topic, including several meta-analytic reviews (cf. LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). OCB has been linked to a broad set of desirable outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, leader behavior, job performance (Podsakoff et al., 2000), and group or organizational effectiveness (e.g., Koys, 2001; Podsakoff, Ahearne,

The authors would like to thank J. Kemp Ellington, Ed Miles, and Bob Moorman for providing invaluable comments on previous versions of this article. Authors contributed equally to the work.
1481

& MacKenzie, 1997). In all, the results of this growing literature seem to support Organs original contention that OCB promotes the functioning of organizations. Although this body of work is expansive, the preponderance of research has examined OCB as a purely individual-level phenomenon within work organizations (Podsakoff et al., 2000). However, as Rousseau (1985) aptly pointed out, most constructs relevant to organizational behavior are inherently multilevel. Thus, a thorough and integrated understanding of OCB within work organizations requires consideration of multiple levels of analysis. Over a decade ago, Organ and Ryan (1995) remarked that such multilevel treatments of OCB hold the promise of both broadening and enriching the notion of citizenship. More recent reviews have further extolled the value of pursuing OCB research over multiple levels of analysis (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2000). In particular, Schnake and Dumler succinctly concluded what is critically needed to enhance our knowledge of OCB is cross-level research. A complete model of OCB is necessarily cross-level (2003: 297). Toward this end, we first explore the nature of OCB at multiple levels of analysis within the broad domain of organizational context. In doing so, we merge literatures on organizational context and multilevel approaches to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of citizenship. We then extend this multilevel focus to a discussion of the impact that group context may have on the perfor-

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holders express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.

1482

Academy of Management Journal

December

mance outcomes of individuals. More specifically, we offer hypotheses regarding the influence of group-level OCB on the relationship between ratings of individual-level OCB and job performance. We examine this relationship using what Kozlowski and Klein (2000) referred to as a cross-level moderator model. In such a model, a group-level characteristic is predicted to moderate the relationship between two individual-level variables. Our study represents one of the few empirical forays to date into examining these important cross-level influences. CONTEXT AND LEVELS SURROUNDING OCB Context has been described as comprising the various situational features (e.g., opportunities, constraints, etc.) that influence the occurrence and meaning of work behavior (Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Johns, 2006). Such situational facets may include characteristics of the work performed, the interpersonal or social environment, and even the physical setting of work. Borman and Motowidlo (1993) noted that an important function of OCB is the role it plays in shaping the organizational, social, and psychological contexts of work. One way context and organizational citizenship behavior have been delineated is with respect to the primary beneficiary of the behavior (Borman & Penner, 2001). For example, OCB can be directed toward an individual, group, or organization (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Smith et al., 1983). Other researchers (e.g., Coleman & Borman, 2000) have categorized OCB into behavior directed specifically toward supporting individuals (e.g., cooperating with others), supporting ones organization (e.g., endorsing the firms mission and objectives), or enhancing the job (e.g., conscientious initiative, volunteering, etc.). Although these different targets of citizenship imply different levels of analysis, the extant literature has focused almost exclusively on the beneficiaries of OCB at the individual level (Schnake & Dumler, 2003). Another way context and citizenship behavior can be conceptualized is in terms of the level at which the behavior actually operates. Here, the emphasis would be on examining connections in a given construct (i.e., OCB) existing across context and level (Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Context is frequently described as environmental conditions comprising factors associated with distinct levels or units of analysis (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991). In this sense, context can delineate different levels of analysis, as occurs when a researcher investigates variables that vary by context (e.g., job, team, or organizational contexts). For example, research in a

job context might include one set of salient variables, while the same research conducted in a team context might include an entirely different set of relevant variables. In relation to OCB, context can further establish the boundary conditions that help define work behavior as citizenship (i.e., discretionary behavior) at different levels of analysis. This interplay between context and level is consistent with conceptualizations of context as a shaper of meaning (Johns, 2006). Conceptualizing OCB as a meaningful multilevel construct is consistent with recent theoretical work (e.g., Schnake & Dumler, 2003). For example, OCB at the individual level includes helping a coworker who has fallen behind in his or her work, avoiding complaining and filing grievances regarding inconsistencies of organizational life, and volunteering for duties not formally a part of ones job. Citizenship at the group level includes behaviors that support other work groups and an organization; a work group as a whole taking fewer work breaks than other work groups is an example (Chen, Lam, Naumann, & Schaubroeck, 2005). At the broad organizational level, citizenship could be construed as firm-level activities such as company-wide participation in industry associations, corporate philanthropic endeavors, and efforts promoting corporate responsibility. Although citizenship can be conceptualized at multiple levels, and thus examined over these distinct levels, to date the majority of research has examined OCB within a given level of analysis. As previously mentioned, most of this within-level research has primarily focused on the OCB of individuals (Podsakoff et al., 2000). However, a handful of published studies have investigated the effects of OCB at the group level as well (e.g., Bommer, Miles, & Grover, 2003; Chen et al., 2005; Ehrhart, Bliese, & Thomas, 2006; George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Koys, 2001; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). When one considers that studies conducted at both of these levels have shown significant effects, whether or not there are also important cross-level effects on OCB (i.e., OCB effects within and across multiple levels) becomes a salient question. At least one study has shown the potential of cross-level relationships for OCB (e.g., Kidwell, Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997), but the analytical focus of this work still remained on individual-level OCB. Thus, what the OCB literature lacks is an investigation of citizenship at different levels of analysis and levels of measurement. If strides are to be made in understanding the multilevel nature of OCB, effort must be put forth to study the complexity of OCB both within and across multiple levels. To examine the complexity of OCB within and

2007

Bommer, Dierdorff, and Rubin

1483

across multiple levels, we specifically focus on potential cross-level effects occurring between grouplevel behavior (work group OCB and work group performance) and individual-level behavior (individual OCB and job performance). Thus, our examinations and hypothesis development invoke a mesolevel paradigm in that we seek to study variables spanning multiple levels (House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995). We next discuss group-level OCB as an important discrete contextual variable (Johns, 2006) and offer hypotheses predicting cross-level moderation for this contextual variable. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Over the past decade, researchers have reached general consensus that employee OCB heavily influences employee performance (Allen, Barnard, Rush, & Russell, 2000; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996; Werner, 1994). This relationship has been demonstrated in both laboratory (Allen & Rush, 1998) and field settings (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994) and has been found for both managers and nonmanagers (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Paine, 1998). Further, the effect has been replicated for different occupational groups, such as salespeople (Avila, Fern, & Mann, 1988; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993) and furniture makers (Podsakoff et al., 2000), and in different work settings, such as manufacturing sites and universities (Allen & Rush, 1998). With few exceptions, the overall conclusion from this research appears to be rather straightforward; more OCB is better than less OCB in relation to job performance. However, if one considers OCB as a multilevel construct, salient questions can be raised, such as, Do these consistently positive relationships between OCB and job performance ratings remain when they are examined at different levels? What impact, if any, does group-level citizenship have on such relationships? To address such questions, we must first consider individual-level OCB within the contextual boundary of work groups. OCB in Group Contexts A multitude of contextual or situational factors affect an individuals behavior (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991). For individuals in organizations, perhaps the most salient social context impacting work behavior is that of their immediate work group (Hackman, 1992). Thus, the context of ones work group can be expected to influence relationships among different aspects of work behavior such as individual-level OCB and job performance. This down-

ward contextual influence, whereby a higher-level unit shapes and moderates relationships in lowerlevel units, is similar to top-down processes often discussed in the literature on multilevel theory and research (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). One aspect of group context is the degree to which a work group engages in organizational citizenship. Because group-level OCB involves the behavior of an entire work group, rather than merely one persons OCB directed toward another individual in his or her group or in another group (Chen et al., 2005), group-level citizenship behavior is very likely to foster what Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) described as group-level OCB norms. These behavioral norms can be expected to influence the consistency with which individuals engage in prescribed behavior (Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). This discussion suggests that some individuals work within contexts in which their work groups frequently perform grouplevel OCB, and others are members of groups in which group-level OCB is rare. Moreover, these differing amounts of group-level OCB should influence the degree to which individual group members perform OCB. What remains to be addressed is how OCB occurring at these multiple levels influences the wellestablished relationships between individual citizenship and job performance or, in other words, whether or not group-level OCB exerts cross-level influence on the contribution of individual-level citizenship to ratings of individual-level job performance. It is important to note that group context likely affects the value given to individual-level OCB in job performance ratings, as individual displays of OCB will vary in distinctiveness depending on the prevalence of OCB in the work groups in which they occur. Distinctiveness of Individual-Level OCB In work group contexts where group-level OCB is the rule rather than the exception, individual-level OCB is likely to lose some of its distinctiveness and thus, may be seen as making a relatively low contribution to job performance. Grey and Kipnis (1976) made similar arguments for the effects of work group context on individual performance. For example, they found that compliant individuals in groups in which others were inept or had poor work attitudes were viewed as better performers than compliant individuals in compliant groups. Similar distinctiveness or contrast effects have also been found in other research veins such as selection interviews, job analysis, and assessment centers (Morgeson & Campion, 1997).

1484

Academy of Management Journal

December

The above arguments are predicated on the notion that OCB is indeed rare. In other words, to be distinctive, such work behavior must stand out. As argued by Podsakoff and colleagues (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 2000) and Allen and Rush (1998), individual-level OCB is very likely to be viewed as distinctive work behavior for several reasons. First, because OCB is not formally required by organizations, such actions are likely to stand out when performed. Second, supervisors view OCB as valuable to job performance. OCB often results in helping supervisors themselves either directly (e.g., when an employee attends a meeting for an ill supervisor) and/or indirectly (e.g., when an employee provides informal feedback to a junior staff member, decreasing need for the supervisors intervention). Thus, on average, it appears that OCB should be regarded as distinctive work behavior. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, engaging in OCB has been found to significantly contribute to an individuals job performance. Yet, what happens if individual-level OCB ceases to be distinctive or rare in a group context? For example, in contexts where group-level OCB is the norm and quite prevalent, individual displays of OCB are less likely to be distinctive. To date, researchers have generally viewed individual OCB as rare, because these behaviors are normally conceptualized as being discretionary and not formally rewarded by the organization (Organ, 1988). However, this premise does not give consideration to the group contextthat is, to the prevalence or rarity of group-level OCB. From this perspective, individual-level OCB may indeed be generally rare, yet it is quite probable that certain environments are replete with OCB, thus creating work group contexts where displays of OCB are the rule rather than exception. Following the preceding rationale, an individuals OCB should have less impact on job performance ratings when group-level OCB is prevalent. That is, when group-level OCB is prevalent, individual citizenship is less likely to be viewed as distinctive. In these work group contexts, the unique value of individual-level OCB to job performance ratings is likely to be attenuated. Conversely, in group contexts where group-level OCB is rare, individual-level OCB is likely to be seen as highly distinctive, and its unique contribution to job performance ratings is likely to be more robust. In short, group-level OCB can be expected to exert cross-level effects by moderating the relationship between individual-level OCB and ratings of job performance. In view of the large body of empirical evidence indicating that individual-level OCB is

related to job performance and the above discussion of cross-level moderation, we formed the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. Employees levels of OCB are positively and significantly related to their levels of job performance. Hypothesis 2. Work group OCB moderates the relationship between individual-level OCB and job performance in such a way that individuallevel OCB and job performance ratings are more strongly related when work group OCB is less prevalent than when it is more prevalent. METHODS Procedures and Participants The studys first author administered an on-site employee survey at seven locations of a publicly owned, United States based machined metal manufacturing firm. Data collection procedures were identical at all the locations. Groups of 20 30 employees were scheduled to go to an on-site training room for 45 minutes of company-paid time. At each session, employees received letters from both the company president and the researchers ensuring the confidentiality of their responses. All employees with supervisory responsibilities were scheduled into separate rooms so that in no case were an employee and his or her supervisor in the same room. Immediate supervisors completed both the employee survey and a performance evaluation instrument that collected information regarding both the OCB and job performance of their direct reports. To ease this process, we included the names of direct reports on the evaluation forms and encouraged the supervisors to delete the names of any listed employees not currently under their direct supervision and to add the names of unlisted employees who were currently under their direct supervision. The final step of data collection required obtaining ratings of group-level OCB from someone other than the immediate supervisor who was in a position to be able to make such an evaluation. As a result, a separate instrument was used to collect group-level OCB data from a supervisor once-removed from the group. In other words, each immediate supervisors manager was asked to provide these ratings. As is important to the assessment of group-level OCB, these supervisors once-removed worked closely enough with the work groups to have ample opportunity to observe such behavior. In addition, using the supervisors once-removed to assess group-level OCB allowed us to directly as-

2007

Bommer, Dierdorff, and Rubin

1485

sess this group-level phenomenon at the correct level of measurement and at the appropriate level of analysis (Mason & Griffin, 2005) without incurring problems from the use of individual-level aggregated data to represent a group-level variable (Rousseau, 1985). A total of 100 unique work groups comprised our studys sample. These work groups were intact, and membership was stable and comprised 736 employees. Of these 100 work groups, 81 were managed by unique immediate supervisors; the remaining 19 work groups had immediate supervisors who managed more than one group. None of the immediate supervisors managed more than 3 unique work groups. A total of 18 supervisors onceremoved provided group-level ratings of the work groups. Employees ranged in status from line production staff to director-level management, and most were male (86%). The mean age of the immediate supervisors was 38.86 years (s.d. 12.31), average education in years was 14.33 (s.d. 2.13), and the mean tenure with their firm was 10.07 years (s.d. 7.94). The demographic characteristics of the supervisors once-removed were similar; mean age was 40.44 years (s.d. 10.59), mean education was 14.37 years (s.d. 1.89), and mean tenure was 12.56 years (s.d. 9.13). Finally, the mean age of the 736 employees was 38.4 (s.d. 10.4), and the average number of education in years was 12.9 (s.d. 1.8). The employees reported tenures with the firm ranging from 1 to 37 years, with a mean of 6.9 (s.d. 7.5), and mean tenure with their current supervisor was approximately 2 years (s.d. 2.3). Control Variables Because our performance criteria were derived from ratings, it was important to control for potentially biasing influences. Immediate supervisors provided the individual-level ratings of both OCB and job performance. Thus, the nature of an employee-supervisor relationship could confound the relationship between these two measures. The quality of the employee-supervisor relationship has long been recognized as an important issue in examinations of OCB (Deluga, 1994; Wat & Shaffer, 2005). One common means of capturing the quality of the employee-supervisor relationship is through assessing leader-member exchange (LMX). A number of field studies have found support for the relation between LMX and performance ratings (e.g., Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). For example, LMX has been shown to impact subjective

ratings of performance more than it impacts objective indexes (Vecchio & Gobdel, 1984), to moderate the extremity of performance ratings (Linville & Jones, 1980), and to influence the degree to which supervisors detect performance differences among individuals (Park & Rothbart, 1982). With these prior findings in mind, we believed controlling for LMX was particularly important. In addition to controlling for LMX, we controlled for two individual demographic variables: participants tenure with the organization, and tenure with their current supervisors. Similar demographic variables have been shown to be related to OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995). In our multilevel analyses, we also introduced a group-level control variable. Because supervisors once-removed rated group-level OCB, we believed that it was important to control for their perceptions of group-level performance. Group-level OCB and group-level performance have been shown to be positively associated (Chen et al., 2005; Ehrhart et al., 2006). Moreover, interpersonal behaviors, such as OCB, are an essential component of group effectiveness and are related to group-level performance (Chen et al., 2005; Thompson, 2004). Thus, in our multilevel analyses we included overall work group performance as a cross-level predictor. Controlling for this grouplevel factor allowed for a more thorough examination of the potential cross-level effects specifically attributable to group-level OCB. Measures We collected data using surveys with items rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and having a middle-point of 4 (neither agree nor disagree). The only exceptions were the two demographic control variables (organizational tenure and tenure with current supervisor), for which item responses were recorded in years. Employee organizational citizenship behavior. Immediate supervisors completed a measure of employee OCB using two of Organs (1988) citizenship dimensions: altruism and sportsmanship. During discussions prior to data collection, the firms vice president of human resources indicated that these dimensions best reflected truly discretionary OCB for the employees of this company. We measured the two OCB dimensions using Podsakoff and colleagues (MacKenzie et al., 1991; Podsakoff et al., 1993) four-item measures of altruism and sportsmanship, both of which have demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties (Bommer et al., 2003; Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). In their extensive review and metaanalysis, LePine, Erez, and Johnson remarked that

1486

Academy of Management Journal

December

the five dimensions of OCB are not much more than equivalent indicators of OCB and that when OCB is the focal construct of interest, scholars should avoid focusing on the specific dimensions of OCB when conducting research and interpreting results (2002: 60 61). Following this recommendation, we averaged the two dimensions to create an overall OCB score for each employee. Results from a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) displayed adequate fit for an overall OCB measure (GFI .95, SRMR .03, RMSEA .06, CFI .99, NFI .98; 2 63.74 [df 16]). Sample items read, Helps others who have heavy workloads and Is the classic squeaky wheel that always needs greasing (reverse-scored). Coefficient alpha for this measure was .89. Ratings of employee job performance. Immediate supervisors responded to four items derived from a measure of employee job performance used by Williams and Anderson (1991). These items assessed job performance as a broad construct, asking an evaluator to rate each employees job performance. Previous research suggests that this measure has high internal consistency, and the scale has been frequently used (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Sample items read, Meets formal performance requirements of the job and Fulfills all responsibilities required by his/her job. Coefficient alpha for this measure was .91. Group-level organizational citizenship behavior. As noted, the supervisors once-removed who completed our measure of group-level OCB were not members of the groups and did not do the actual work of the groups. These supervisors onceremoved had daily, face-to-face interactions with their rated groups employees and spent the majority of their workdays managing on the shop floor. Modified versions of the Podsakoff and colleagues (MacKenzie et al., 1991; Podsakoff et al., 1993) altruism and sportsmanship scales described above were used. To capture group-level OCB, we modified the instructions and changed the referent of the altruism and sportsmanship measures from an individual to a group. Thus, the instructions asked raters to think about a group as a whole. For example, we modified an item from This employee consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters to This group spends a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. As with the individual-level OCB measure, we averaged the altruism and sportsmanship scales into an overall group-level OCB score for each group. High scores indicate a greater prevalence of group-level OCB. The coefficient alpha for the scale was .80, and the

mean for group-level OCB was 4.89, with a standard deviation of 1.19.1 Group-level performance. To control for the potential cross-level influence of a work groups overall performance, its supervisor once-removed rated each work groups performance using a five-item scale. Sample items included The work groups work is of high quality, The work group is effectively meeting their objectives, and Reports on their performance are favorable. Coefficient alpha for this measure was .92. Leader-member exchange. To control for LMX, we used the LMX-7 scale (Scandura & Graen, 1984), which was completed by each work group employee. This seven-item scale has been widely used and has shown acceptable psychometric properties. Sample items read, My supervisor recognizes my potential and My working relationship with my supervisor is effective. Coefficient alpha for this measure was .90. Analytic Strategy To test our hypotheses, we used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992), which allows for the simultaneous analysis of both individual- and group-level variance in individual outcomes. Thus, we could test for cross-level relationships among study variables while accounting for their different sources of variance (Hofmann, Griffin, & Gavin, 2000). Model testing followed sequential steps and standard HLM practices (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). First, we conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the null model, examining the variance in ratings of job performance only. This model partitioned dependent variable variance and calculated the amount of performance ratings variance that resided between work groups versus within work groups. Assuming significant between-group variance in job performance, in the second step we introduced individual-level independent variables in a random-coefficient regression model (level 1 analysis).
1

Group-level OCB as rated by supervisors once-removed was associated with an aggregate measure of individual-level OCB as rated by direct supervisors (r .47, p .01). Several scholars (e.g., Klein & Kozlowski, 2001) have stated that, whenever possible, one should measure constructs at the level at which they are theorized. Thus, the supervisors once-removed were the best source of data given that our intent was to capture grouplevel OCB. Using supervisors once-removed also capitalized on the naturally occurring multilevel structure within the organization and created separate data sources for OCB ratings made at both levels.

2007

Bommer, Dierdorff, and Rubin

1487

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics for Individual-Level Study Variablesa

Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Tenure with organization Tenure with supervisor LMX Individual-level OCB Job performance
a

Mean 6.87 2.14 4.49 5.05 5.38

s.d. 7.45 2.31 1.45 1.15 1.16

.27** .03 .01 .02

.03 .02 .02

(.90) .33** .25**

(.89) .66**

(.91)

n 736 for individual-level data. Coefficient alphas are presented in parentheses. ** p .01

This model consisted of analyses within each work group, thus generating separate regression lines for each group and allowing both a significance test of the pooled level 1 slopes and testing for significant variance in pooled level 1 intercepts and slopes. Results of this model allowed assessment of whether the relationship between individual-level OCB and job performance ratings was significant and assessment of whether this relationship varied over work groups. Importantly, the significance test of the pooled level 1 slopes also provided information with which to test Hypothesis 1. Assuming significant between-group variance in the slopes for individual-level OCB predicting performance, in the third analytic step we posited a slopes-as-outcomes model in which slope estimates derived from the level 1 analysis were regressed on group-level OCB. Group-level performance was also entered into this model as a control. The purpose of this model was to test whether work group OCB could account for the between-group variance in pooled level 1 slopes from the previous random-coefficient regression model. More specifically, this model tested for cross-level effects that would reveal whether or not group-level OCB moderated the relationship between individual-level OCB and job performance ratings, with the other level 1 variables and grouplevel performance controlled (Hypothesis 2). We grand-mean-centered all level 1 variables to facilitate interpretation (Aiken & West, 1991).2 HLM models were estimated with HLM 6 software. RESULTS Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the individual-level variables
2 We also tested all the models using group-meancentering to verify that cross-level effects were not due to spurious correlations (Bliese, 2002; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). Results remained unchanged in these analyses. Thus, only grand-mean-centered results are shown.

used in the study. We estimated two initial CFA models to verify the distinctiveness of our level 1 constructs (LMX, OCB, and job performance) and our level 2 measures (group-level OCB and overall group performance). Results of the analysis suggested that the level 1 constructs were distinct, as the model specifying three separate factors provided adequate fit ( 2 194.06 [df 87], GFI .97, RMR .03, RMSEA .04, CFI .99). This threefactor model also provided a significant improvement in fit over both a single-factor model ( 2 640.39 [df 89], GFI .86, SRMR .09, RMSEA .09, CFI .91) and a two-factor model combining OCB and job performance ratings ( 2 2,900.54 [df 90], GFI .51, SRMR .20, RMSEA .21, CFI .61). The CFA of the level 2 measures produced similarly differentiating results, as a twofactor model provided adequate fit (GFI .99, SRMR .01, RMSEA .03, CFI .99) and a significant improvement in fit ( 2 61.21, p .001) over a single-factor model. A prerequisite for running HLM models is significant between-group variance in the dependent variable of interest (Hofmann, 1997; Hofmann et al., 2000). To assess this precondition, we conducted an ANOVA with job performance as the dependent variable and work group membership as the independent variable. Results provided evidence of significant between-group variance in ratings of job performance ( 00 .36, df 98, 2 378.04, p .001), thus justifying further cross-level analyses. Estimating such a null model produces information that allows for the estimation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The ICC indicates the proportion of between-group variance relative to total variance in individual-level job performance ratings and represents the amount of variance potentially explainable by level 2 variables. The results of this analysis indicated that 27 percent of the variance in ratings of job performance existed between work groups. Because significant between-work-group variance existed, we proceeded with further analyses.

1488

Academy of Management Journal

December

TABLE 2 HLM Results for Individual and Group OCB Predicting Individual Job Performance
Level Individual Model Random-coefficient regression Variable Tenure with organization Tenure with supervisor LMX Individual-level OCB Group-level performance Group-level OCB Group-level performance individual-level OCB Group-level OCB individual-level OCB .01 .01 .06* .65** .08 .09 .10 .14* s.e. .01 .01 .02 .06 .07 .06 .07 .05 t 0.03 0.09 2.19 11.58 1.15 1.13 1.62 1.99

Group

Intercepts-as-outcomes Slopes-as-outcomes

*p ** p

.05 .01

We estimated a random-coefficient regression model to test Hypothesis 1 and to assess whether there was significant between-group variance in level 1 intercepts and slopes. The results from this model showed significant between-group variance in both intercepts ( 00 .25, df 98, 2 147.38, p .001) and slopes ( 11 .16, df 98, 2 193.81, p .001). The top half of Table 2 displays parameter estimates for these individual-level predictors. Individual-level OCB was significantly related to ratings of job performance ( .65, p .01). LMX was also significantly related to job performance, indicating the importance of controlling for its influences ( .06, p .05). Comparing the residual variance produced in the null model and the current model provides an estimate of the variance explained (R2) at level 1. The level 1 R2 was .59, which provided supportive evidence for Hypothesis 1, which states that employees levels of OCB are positively and significantly related to their performance evaluations. Because we found significant variance in slopes for individual-level OCB and performance in the previous model, we calculated a multilevel slopesas-outcomes model to test the second hypothesis, regarding the cross-level effect of group-level OCB on the relationship between individual-level OCB and performance ratings. We examined this potential cross-level effect for group-level OCB while controlling for the other level 1 variables and the level 2 variable of overall work group performance. Table 2 displays the results for this slopes-as-outcomes model. Although not used to test study hypotheses, also shown in this table are results from an intercepts-as-outcomes model. The results from the slopes-as-outcomes model support Hypothesis 2, in that group-level OCB had a significant inverse relationship to the level 1 slopes ( .14, p .01), even after we controlled for the other individual-

level variables and group-level performance. This result demonstrates the cross-level effect of grouplevel OCB by indicating that when group-level OCB is rare, the relationship between individual-level OCB and ratings of job performance increases. Figure 1 graphically depicts this cross-level moderation, plotting the relationship between individuallevel OCB and job performance ratings in groups with prevalent OCB and those with scarce OCB. Comparing the variance components for slope from the intercepts-as-outcomes model ( 11 .16, df 98, 2 193.86, p .001) and the slopes-as-outcomes model ( 11 .10, df 98, 2 136.42, p .001) yields an R2 value of .38. Therefore, grouplevel OCB accounts for over 38 percent of the variance in relationships between individual-level OCB and job performance ratings.3 DISCUSSION Responding to recent calls to explore multilevel and contextual influences in OCB theory and research, we investigated the potential impact of group-level OCB on the relationship between individual-level OCB and job performance ratings. Utilizing data from 100 work groups in a national manufacturing firm, we found that group-level OCB showed significant cross-level effects. These effects were evident even after we controlled for individual-level demographic characteristics and LMX, as well as cross-level influences of grouplevel performance. The prevalence of group-level

3 To investigate the possible effect of nonuniquely supervised work groups, we ran our HLM model on a sample without the 19 work groups that did not have unique supervisors once-removed. There were no significant changes in our findings.

2007

Bommer, Dierdorff, and Rubin

1489

FIGURE 1 Plot of the Cross-Level Moderation of Group-Level OCB

OCB accounted for over one-third of the variance in relationships between individual-level OCB and job performance ratings across sample work groups. The present study contributes much-needed cross-level data to the OCB literature and represents the first empirical investigation of OCB at multiple levels of analysis and multiple levels of measurement. Previous research has indeed examined the impact of OCB on variables from different levels, such as individual-level OCB and organizational effectiveness. However, prior work has not directly studied the simultaneous influences of citizenship captured at more than one level of analysis. We incorporated both individual-level OCB and group-level OCB within our examinations, and our findings demonstrate the potency of grouplevel OCB as a cross-level moderator. Considered in conjunction with the results of other published research (e.g., Chen et al., 2005), our findings suggest that the group-level OCB construct is meaningful and has significant relationships to important outcomes. Thus, this study provides a unique contribution to the broader OCB literature by not only describing how OCB manifests at different levels, but also empirically demonstrating that OCB measured at one particular level of analysis can substantially influence OCB measured at another level of analysis. Drawing on theoretical research describing the influence of group contexts on individuals performance of OCB (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004) and

research portraying OCB as distinctive work behavior (Podsakoff et al., 1993, 2000), we proposed that the prevalence or absence of overall work group citizenship behavior would likely influence the relationship between ratings of OCB and job performance. We argued that under conditions of strong group-level OCB, an individuals display of OCB is likely to be less distinctive and contribute less to ratings of job performance. Our results confirm this expectation and suggest that when group-level OCB is rare, employees OCBs make larger contributions to their performance evaluations than the OCBs of employees working in group contexts in which group-level OCB is high. Put simply, the value of a persons citizenship relative to his or her job performance is greater when performed in the context of rarity rather than prevalence. These findings strongly highlight how context serves as an influential backdrop to work behavior and how milieu often changes the magnitude of well-established relationships (Johns, 2006). It is important to note that we chose to take a rather parsimonious approach to delineating group context by focusing solely on group-level OCB. Thus, group-level OCB can be seen as representing one of many possible facets of discrete context that could impact individual-level citizenship and its covariates. Despite our economical operationalization of group context, we still found significant and meaningful cross-level effects. Although we relied on literature supporting the distinctiveness of citizenship behavior, our results

1490

Academy of Management Journal

December

can be viewed from other perspectives as well. For example, recent research suggests that the power of social networks and the strength of friendship ties within work groups may significantly influence coworkers performance of OCB (Bowler & Brass, 2006). Further, it has been suggested that building successful networks within teams is associated with overall gains in team performance (Reagans, Zuckerman, & McEvily, 2004). Thus, strong ties to other individuals in a group or to the group itself may serve to augment group cohesiveness and the desire to reciprocate citizenship (Lamertz, 2006).4 For an individual in a group with low group-level OCB, the strength of his or her network could significantly increase the likelihood of performing OCB, particularly when it is directed toward the group or organization. Another perspective from which to interpret our results is impression management. Recent research notes that some of the motivation to perform citizenship behavior could stem from use of impression management tactics (e.g., Bolino, Varela, Bande, & Turnley, 2006; Rioux & Penner, 2001). Bolino (1999) argued that citizenship counts most when it is likely to maximize image enhancement, and the probability of an audience of influential targets actually noticing an individuals OCB affects such maximization. In relation to our findings, a context where group-level OCB is infrequent is likely to create situations that increase the probability of ones citizenship being noticed. In contexts of bountiful group-level OCB, individual displays of citizenship are likely to have a lower probability of being formally recognized. Thus, employees looking to use citizenship as an impression management tactic may be well advised to seek other means to differentiate themselves from the crowd when group-level OCB is ubiquitous. Interestingly, our results show that individual-level OCB makes a positive contribution to job performance regardless of group context, which is similar to the proposition forwarded by the OCB-impression management literature that regardless of motive, citizenship should still positively impact organizational functioning. A final area that appears relevant to our findings relates to examining antecedents of OCB at higher levels of analysis and measurement. As evidenced by Podsakoff et al. (2000), relatively little attention has been paid to the role of group or organizational factors when it comes to antecedents and important moderators of individual-level OCB effects. Bolino

and Turnley (2003) suggested human resource strategies to specifically increase the quantity of individual citizenship behaviors, yet little research exists exploring the effects of these strategies or the potential multilevel implications. Rather than investigating these formal and behavioral mechanisms, future research might benefit from examining the effect of informal group reward or punishment mechanisms that would encourage or discourage the performance of individual-level OCB. Like classic rate busters on a manufacturing line dealing with overproducers, groups may employ subtle mechanisms for encouraging OCB that are as powerful as formal mechanisms. Likewise, aspects of more macro organizational contexts (e.g., culture or climate dimensions) could be explored in terms of their cross-level impact on group-level OCB and its outcomes. Limitations Although this study presents some interesting results and has several methodological strengths including multiple data sources, a real-world organizational sample, and a large number of work groupsa few limitations deserve specific mention. First, this study employed a cross-sectional design and thus the direction of causality is impossible to decipher. Quite possibly the relationship between performance ratings and OCB could be the reverse of what we hypothesize, with employees receiving performance feedback that increases OCB. Second, ratings for both job performance and individual-level OCB were derived from the same source (immediate supervisors), as were those of group-level OCB and group-level performance (supervisors once-removed), creating the potential for common source influences. Although supplemental analyses indicated that such influences had little effect on the magnitude of the relationship between the ratings of job performance and the OCB measures, our results should nevertheless be interpreted with caution. A third potential limitation stems from the studys sample, which may somewhat limit generalizability. The study was based upon data collected from members of a manufacturing firm where OCB tends to be restricted to a few types of behaviors (e.g., sportsmanship). Results might vary substantially in contexts in which a greater number of OCBs are prevalent, such as service-oriented companies or more team-based organizations. Of course, this is an empirical issue that can be resolved by additional research. Finally, future crosslevel research could include more expansive group-level and individual-level variables. For ex-

We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this alternative explanation.

2007

Bommer, Dierdorff, and Rubin

1491

ample, other discrete group context variables such as cohesiveness, group size, or task interdependence may possess the potential for cross-level moderation of relationships between individual differences and the performance of OCB. As previously discussed, other individual-level factors, such as impression management and social networks, would likely provide insightful findings. Conclusion Employing a meso-level approach, our examinations bridge the contextual intersection between OCB at the individual level and OCB at the group level. Given that the roles of employee attitudes and individual differences have been extensively explored in relation to OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000), the current results suggest that a cross-level approach may provide new possibilities from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. We found the prevalence of OCB assessed at the group level to moderate individual-level OCB relationships. It would be interesting to examine whether such cross-level effects exist at more molar levels of analysis as well. For example, future research could investigate whether organizational contexts replete with citizenship exert similar moderation on group-level citizenship and group-level effectiveness. Despite the plethora of possible questions and the potential payoffs, it seems that researchers have been slow to examine OCB at multiple levels of analysis and measurement. Yet, as Organ and Ryan (1995) remarked, the significant questions that remain involve other modes of conceptualization and other levels of analysis. To address these questions, researchers must begin to conceptualize OCB as more than simply an individual-level behavior or an aggregate of individual-level behaviors and fully explicate the complexity and richness that exist in the construct. Our research exposes such complexity through the simple introduction of group-level OCB. We concur with Schnake and Dumler (2003) that OCB theory may become increasingly more ambiguous and lack specificity regarding the appropriate level of analysis and measurement if OCB researchers do not more carefully attend to and incorporate level into their examinations. Recent work by Chen and colleagues (2005) provides a clear example of explicit theorization and subsequent measurement of OCB at an appropriate level of analysis. Practically speaking, capturing OCB at higher levels does raise increasingly difficult measurement challenges (e.g., different data sources) that must be designated before data collection. However, such challenges are not insurmountable, and such efforts should lead to empir-

ically interesting and theoretically important results. In summary, much work remains, and future OCB researchers would be well advised to more thoroughly consider the effects of multilevel and contextual influences. REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Allen, T. D., Barnard, S., Rush, M. C., & Russell, J. 2000. Ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: Does the source make a difference? Human Resource Management Review, 10: 97114. Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. 1998. The effects of organizational citizenship on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 247260. Avila, R. A., Fern, E. F., & Mann, O. K. 1988. Unraveling the criteria for assessing the performance of salespeople: A causal analysis. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 8(1): 4554. Barnard, C. I. 1938. The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. 1983. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 587595. Bliese, P. D. 2002. Multilevel random coefficient modeling in organizational research: Examples using SAS and S-PLUS. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Modeling in organizational research: Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: 401 445. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bolino, M. C. 1999. Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24: 8298. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. 2003. Going the extra mile: Cultivating and managing employee citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Executive, 17(3): 60 71. Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. 2006. The impact of impression-management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 281297. Bommer, W. H., Miles, E. W., & Grover, S. L. 2003. Does one good turn deserve another? Coworker influences on employee citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 181196. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection: 7198. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

1492

Academy of Management Journal

December

Borman, W. C., & Penner, L. A. 2001. Citizenship performance: Its nature, antecedents, and motives. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace: 45 61. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. 2006. Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: A social network perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 70 82. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11: 710 725. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. 1992. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. 1991. The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level approach. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 13: 55110. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Chen, X. P., Lam. S. S. K, Naumann, S., & Schaubroeck, J. 2005. Group citizenship behaviour: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of its antecedents and consequences. Management and Organization Review, 1: 273300. Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Guilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.), vol. 2: 151192. New York: McGraw Hill. Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. 2000. Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10: 25 44. Deluga, R. J. 1994. Supervisor trust building, leadermember exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 315326. Ehrhart, M. G., Bliese, P. D., & Thomas, J. L. 2006. Unitlevel OCB and unit effectiveness: Examining the incremental effect of helping behavior. Human Performance, 19: 159 173. Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 960 974. George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. 1990. Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 698 709. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. 1992. Feeling good doing good. A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112: 310 329. Grey, R. J., & Kipnis, D. 1976. Untangling the performance appraisal dilemma. The influence of per-

ceived organizational context on evaluative processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61: 329 335. Hackman, J. R. 1992. Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 3: 199 268. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hattrup, K., & Jackson, S. E. 1996. Learning about individual differences by taking situations seriously. K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations: 507547. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hofmann, D. A. 1997. An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23: 723744. Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. 1998. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24: 623 641. Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. 2000. The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 467511. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. 1995. The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 17: 71114. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. 1999. The ties that bind: The impact of leadermember exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 680 694. Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31: 386 408. Katz, D. 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 9: 131133. Kidwell, R. E., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. 1997. Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23: 775793. Koys, D. J. 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54: 101114. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Founda-

2007

Bommer, Dierdorff, and Rubin

1493

tions, extensions, and new directions: 390. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lamertz, K. 2006. Organizational citizenship behaviour, social networks, informal organization, role theory. Organization Science, 27: 79 102 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. Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. J. 1980. Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 689 703. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123 150. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1993. The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57(1): 70 80. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. E. 1998. Effects of organizational citizenship behaviors and productivity on evaluations of performance at different hierarchical levels in sales organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27: 396 410. Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. 2005. Group task satisfaction: The groups shared attitude to its task and work environment. Group & Organization Management, 30: 625 652. Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. 1997. Social and cognitive sources of potential inaccuracy in job analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 627 655. Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. 1993. Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6: 209 225. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. 1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 475 480. Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. 1993. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 527556. Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48: 775 802. Park, B., & Rothbart, M. 1982. Perception of out-group

homogeneity and the levels of social categorization: Memory for subordinate attributes of in-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42: 10511068. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 262270. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1994. Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31: 351363. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. 1993. Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 11: 1 40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107142. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26: 513563. Reagans, R. E., Zuckerman, E. W., & McEvily, B. 2004. How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective projects in a contract R&D firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 101133. Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. 2001. The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1306 1314. Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 7: 137. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location: Contexualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 113. Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. 1984. Moderating effects of initial leadermember exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 428 436. Schnake, M. E., & Dumler, M. P. 2003. Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behavior research, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76: 283301. Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. 1996. Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leadermember exchange, and employee

1494

Academy of Management Journal

December

reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 219 227. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 655 663. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. 1959. The social psychology of groups, New York: Wiley. Thompson, L. 2004. Making the team: A guide for managers (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1996. Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 525531. Vecchio, R. P., & Gobdel, B. C. 1984. The vertical dyadic linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 520. Wat, D., & Shaffer, M. A. 2005. Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel Review, 34: 406 422. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. 2002. The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 590 598. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 82111. Werner, J. M. 1994. Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 98 107.

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.

William H. Bommer (billbommer@aol.com) is an associate professor and Craig Faculty Fellow in the Management Department at Fresno State Universitys Craig School of Business. He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Indiana University. His research interests include transformational/transactional leadership, organizational citizenship, leadership development, and research methods. Erich C. Dierdorff (edierdor@depaul.edu) is an assistant professor in the Management Department at DePaul Universitys Kellstadt Graduate School of Business. He received his Ph.D. in industrial and organizational psychology from North Carolina State University. His current research interests include understanding how individuals come to assess the various requirements of their work roles, as well as examining the interplay between person and contextual influences on work-related inferences such as those used in performance evaluation, work analysis, and training needs assessment. Robert S. Rubin (rrubin@depaul.edu) is an assistant professor in the Management Department at DePaul Universitys Kellstadt Graduate School of Business. He received his Ph.D. in organizational psychology from Saint Louis University. His current research interests include transformational leadership, leader cynicism, social and emotional individual differences, and management education.