Journal of Managerial Psychology

Extrarole behaviors challenging the statusquo: Validity and antecedents of taking

charge behaviors
Dan S. Chiaburu Vicki L. Baker

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Dan S. Chiaburu Vicki L. Baker, (2006),"Extra#role behaviors challenging the status#quo", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss 7 pp. 620 - 637
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690178
Downloaded on: 15 October 2014, At: 03:34 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1675 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Alan M. Saks, (2006),"Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement", Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss 7 pp. 600-619
Pablo Zoghbi Manrique De Lara, (2007),"Redefining OCB as Cybercivism: Do Work Attitudes also Explain
Organizational Citizenship Internet Behaviors?", Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican
Academy of Management, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 43-52
Kelly L Zellars, Bennett J Tepper, (2003),"BEYOND SOCIAL EXCHANGE: NEW DIRECTIONS FOR
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR THEORY AND RESEARCH", Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, Vol. 22 pp. 395-424

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 548078 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP
21,7

620

Extra-role behaviors challenging

the status-quo
Validity and antecedents of taking charge
behaviors
Dan S. Chiaburu

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

Received December 2005

Revised May 2006
Accepted May 2006

Washington, District of Columbia, USA, and

Vicki L. Baker
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract
Purpose The paper aims to investigate the antecedents of taking charge, an extra-role behavior
(ERB) directed at challenging the status-quo.
Design/methodology/approach The hypotheses were tested using regression analysis on data
obtained by surveying 211 employees in one work organization.
Findings Support was found for the distinctiveness of taking charge, a type of ERB that challenges
the status-quo, from traditional ERB, such as organization-directed and individual-directed
organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBO, OCBI, respectively), and from in-role behaviors (IRB).
In addition, individual-related factors, such as propensity to trust, employee exchange ideology, and
their interaction, predict taking charge. Supervisor-related factors, such as output control by the direct
manager, are also significant predictors.
Practical implications Practitioners interested in interventions to enhance taking charge
behaviors can rely on these findings by either selecting employees (based on the employees propensity
to trust and exchange ideologies) or by providing appropriate organizational controls.
Originality/value The findings are valuable for those engaged in theory building and testing and
for practitioners. From a theoretical perspective, the paper proposes and tests novel predictors of
taking charge on a sample of administrative and line employees. In addition, if the results are properly
validated in other organizational contexts, practitioners can use these ideas to design specific
interventions.
Keywords Trust, Leadership, Control
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Managerial Psychology

Vol. 21 No. 7, 2006
pp. 620-637
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940610690178

As todays business environment increases in complexity, organizations respond

by becoming less centralized (Kanter et al., 1992), redefining aspects of the
employees work roles (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979), and relying on behaviors
that are not clearly prescribed in workforce performance or role requirements
(Arthur, 1992; Daft and Lewin, 1993). Organ (1988, 1990) provided one of the early
conceptualizations of extra-role behaviors (ERB) - organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCBs). OCBs are defined as those organizationally beneficial behaviors
and gestures that can neither be enforced on the basis of formal role obligations
nor elicited by contractual guarantees or recompense (Organ, 1990, p. 46). While
important for some aspects of organizational functioning, behaviors such as
helping colleagues with their workloads, attending functions that are not required,

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

and obeying informal organizational norms might be construed as supporting the

status-quo and perpetuating organizational procedures and routines that are
less-than-perfect for enhanced performance. Indeed, such compliance and uncritical
support might be sometimes at odds with the more recent business imperatives of
getting off the treadmill (Prahalad and Hamel, 1996, p. 1) or with the need to
encourage ERBs that are challenging-promotive rather than simply
affiliative-promotive (Van Dyne et al., 1995).
To capture these challenging-promotive behaviors, Morrison and Phelps (1999)
proposed a different conceptualization of ERBs, called taking charge. Taking charge
behaviors, as used in this study:
. . . entail voluntary and constructive efforts, by individual employees, to effect
organizationally functional change with respect to how work is executed within
the context of their jobs, work units, or organizations (Morrison and Phelps, 1999,
p. 403).

In practical terms, these behaviors consist of adopting improved procedures for the
job, changing how the job is executed in order to be more effective, or correcting a
faulty procedure or practice. These authors provided preliminary support for the
distinctiveness of the construct and, using both individual-level and contextual
predictors, demonstrated that taking charge behaviors are a function of employees
felt responsibility for changing the workplace, their belief in their capacity to
perform, and their perception of support for change provided by top management.
While this line of research provided preliminary evidence for differentiating taking
charge from other ERBs and introduced some of its predictors, it is not without
limitations.
First, although there is some evidence of the discriminant and convergent validity of
the taking charge construct, prior studies provided comparisons only with altruism
and civic virtue OCBs (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). Recent research indicated that the
dimensionality of OCBs is better captured by specific operationalizations such as
organization- and individual-directed citizenship behavior (OCBO, OCBI; Coleman and
Borman, 2000; Organ, 1997; LePine et al., 2002; Moon et al., 2005). To further support
this line of research, we examine whether taking charge behaviors are different from
such OCBs. Second, we respond to calls from prior research and focus on identifying a
broader set of predictors (Morrison and Phelps, 1999, p. 416). Specifically, we examine
propensity to trust and employee exchange ideology, two individual-level predictors,
and their relation to taking charge behaviors. Third, we test whether taking charge
behaviors will generalize to other populations, particularly where taking charge is
likely to be more unusual (for instance, clerical or blue-collar employees) (Morrison
and Phelps, 1999, p. 416). To examine the extent to which taking charge behaviors are
present or not for non-managerial positions, we rely on data collected from line and
administrative employees. Lastly, extending studies that demonstrated how senior
management support influences managers taking charge behaviors (Morrison and
Phelps, 1999), we examine the influence of the direct manager on taking charge
behaviors of non-managerial employees. In what follows, we provide a conceptual
framework focusing on individual- and supervisory-related factors that are important
in continuing this line of research (Figure 1).

Extra-role
behaviors

621

JMP
21,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

622

Figure 1.
Conceptual framework:
factors influencing taking
charge

Theoretical outline and hypotheses development

Taking charge: distinctiveness
We used the typology of Van Dyne et al. (1995) to differentiate taking charge from
organizational citizenship behaviors. Specifically, Van Dyne et al. (1995) classify such
ERBs along two orthogonal axes, affiliative-challenging and promotive-prohibitive. In
this study, we do not focus on the prohibitive dimension, since it refers to behaviors
such as whistle-blowing and principled organizational dissent, which are beyond our
present scope. Although both affiliative-promotive and challenging-promotive
behaviors can be classified as promoting good organizational functioning, what
differentiates them is the affiliative challenging continuum. In their recent review of
the OCB literature, Organ et al. (2006) proposed an organization of OCBs using seven
dimensions (i.e. helping, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational
compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue and self-development). With the
exception of individual initiative, a dimension similar to taking charge but did not
receive sufficient attention (Organ et al., 2006, p. 310) all the other dimensions reflect an
affiliative-promotive aspect. We note that taking charge behaviors are, according to the
original definition, directed at organizationally functional change (emphasis added)
(Morrison and Phelps, 1999, p. 403). Consequently, we are interested in testing whether
employees distinguish conceptually between affiliative behaviors (OCBs) and
challenging behaviors (taking charge).
Prior research on the dimensionality and discriminant validity of the taking charge
construct compared it with OCB operationalizations such as altruism and civic virtue,
and with in-role behaviors (IRB) (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). Based on conceptual and
empirical studies, we present arguments for comparing taking charge with OCBO,
OCBI and IRB. The focus (or the direction) of citizenship behaviors was an important
issue since early OCB studies. For example, Smith et al. (1983) conceptualized OCBs as
altruism, directed at other individuals, and compliance, directed at the organization.
Williams and Anderson (1991) subsequently provided an operationalization of OCBI
and OCBO, while other authors indicated that these dimensions have a distinct set of
antecedents, correlates and consequences (Masterson et al., 2000; McNeely and
Meglino, 1994).
In addition to this conceptual respecification, the meta-analysis of LePine et al.
(2002) on the nature and dimensionality of OCB reveals that the citizenship behaviors
are highly intercorrelated. Consequently, one possible way to capture the range of
behaviors while still maintaining parsimony is to combine either some or all of the OCB
dimensions. Indeed, there is evidence indicating that ERBs such as OCBI include
Organs (1988) altruism and courtesy dimensions, while OCBO include sportsmanship,
civic virtue and conscientiousness (Coleman and Borman, 2000; Williams and

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

Anderson, 1991). This parsimonious conceptualization is also reviewed favorably in

other conceptual studies of OCB dimensions (Moon et al., 2005; Organ, 1997). Thus, we
extend prior research by comparing taking charge with an OCB operationalization that
accounts for individual and organizational beneficiaries of these behaviors while
balancing comprehensiveness and parsimony. Prior studies used a shortened four-item
IRB scale (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). We provide a new test, using the complete
seven-item IRB scale proposed initially by Williams and Anderson (1991). Based on
prior research, we expect to see employees differentiating OCBs from IRB (Nikolaou,
2003; Williams and Anderson, 1991) and taking charge behaviors. Prior conceptual
arguments indicate that OCBs are primarily affiliative or promotive behaviors such
as helping, sharing and cooperating (Van Dyne et al., 1995, p. 230). We expect these
behaviors to be different from taking charge behaviors, targeted to a greater extent at
changing the organization.
H1. Employees perceive IRB, OCBO, OCBI and taking charge behaviors as
distinct dimensions.
Taking charge: individual-related predictors
Prior studies on ERBs such as voice (Milliken et al., 2003), silence (Morrison and
Milliken, 2000) and taking charge (Morrison and Phelps, 1999) proposed that these
behaviors are predicted by both individual and contextual factors. One
individual-related factor is propensity to trust. Both empirical and prescriptive
studies agreed that trust is one of the critical predictors of employee engagement in
behaviors beyond their role requirements (Aryee et al., 2002; Mayer et al., 1995; Mayer
and Gavin, 2005; Ryan and Oestreich, 1998). From an individual perspective,
propensity to trust is based on a generalized expectancy to attribute benevolent intent
to others (Rotter, 1980). It is, therefore, more likely that this disposition will be more
important in situations that are ambiguous and where it is difficult to predict the
behaviors of others. Employees engage in ERBs, such as taking charge for several
reasons. On the one hand, reciprocation or reward from the organization or its agents is
not always certain. On the other, given that taking charge behaviors aim at changing
or at least questioning established organizational and procedural routines, the
status-quo might not respond favorably to these challenges.
Consequently, we posit that propensity to trust is one possible necessary condition
for our focal behavior. Indeed, prior studies support the relationship between
propensity to trust and ERBs that are more affiliative-promotive (Graham, 1991; Van
Dyne et al., 2000). Extending these findings to challenging-promotive behaviors such
as taking charge, we propose that employees with a high tendency to trust might
engage in positive actions aimed at improving their organizations precisely because of
their propensity to construe the environment as benevolent.
H2. Propensity to trust is positively related to taking charge behaviors.
Another individual-level predictor of taking charge might be what Eisenberger et al.
(1986) termed employee exchange ideology. These authors proposed that employees
form a belief regarding the extent to which their behaviors should be a function of the
treatment by employing organizations. Specifically, employees with weak exchange
ideologies construe their employment relationships in open terms, as opposed to
employees with strong exchange ideologies, who would expect more symmetric and

Extra-role
behaviors

623

JMP
21,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

624

quid-pro-quo exchanges. Thus, we posit that employees will engage in taking charge
behaviors when their exchange ideology decreases from strong quid-pro-quo-type
beliefs to weaker and more open relationships. It is very likely that employees who
have strong exchange ideologies will have less incentive to engage in ERBs directed at
improving their organizations, because of their lack of reliance on open exchanges with
the organization and the utilization of more economic-oriented frameworks
(Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004). These economic exchanges are represented by a primary
focus on tangible aspects of the exchange and transactions based on utility
maximization, factors incompatible with challenging-promotive behaviors directed at
organizational improvement. On the contrary, a weak exchange ideology is clearly
favorable to subsequent engagement in challenging-promotive ERBs. Open exchanges
are, indeed, governed by mutually beneficial exchanges and the development of an
enduring relation (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004). More specifically, researchers confirmed
the existence of a positive relationship between a weak exchange ideology (and thus a
more proactive and open relationship) and proximal outcomes such as felt
responsibility and ERBs (Eisenberger et al., 2001; Witt, 1991).
H3. Employee exchange ideology is negatively related to taking charge behaviors.
Although prior research (Morrison and Phelps, 1999) revealed direct influences of
individual variables on taking charge, an examination of potential boundary
conditions is needed. Particularly, propensity to trust and employee exchange ideology
might also interact in influencing taking charge. Such a boundary condition might be
represented by the employees weak or strong exchange ideologies with their
organizations. Employees with strong exchange ideologies would be more likely to
consider themselves entitled to the benefits they receive from their organizations.
Those espousing weak ideologies, however, may be more benevolent in their exchange
relationships (Huseman et al., 1987; Miles et al., 1989). We thus posit that employees
propensity to trust may not always lead to taking charge, particularly when combined
with a strong exchange ideology. Specifically, a strong exchange ideology may
neutralize the effect of propensity to trust on taking charge because of these employees
focus on immediate rewards and a tolerance to over-rewards by the organization.
Conversely, employees with weak exchange ideologies may enhance the relationship
between propensity to trust and taking charge because of their tolerance to
under-reward by their organizations and of their propensity to engage in open
exchanges (Huseman et al., 1987; Miles et al., 1989). Similar patterns of relationships are
described in related lines of research, indicating that employees develop their
accountability perceptions, and their subsequent ERBs, as a function of contingent
(quid-pro-quo) and affective (trust-based) exchange processes (Erdogan et al., 2004).
H4. The relationship between employee propensity to trust and taking charge
behaviors is moderated by employee exchange ideology. Specifically, the
relationship will be stronger under weak employee exchange ideology than
under strong exchange ideology.
Taking charge: supervisor-related predictors
Festinger (1954) proposed that the introduction of hierarchical structures in groups
generates constraints in the communicational and behavioral processes, especially
from the low- to the high-status members. Echoing ideas on hierarchies, Ouchi (1979,

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

p. 846) states, people must either be able to trust each other or to closely monitor each
other if they are to engage in cooperative enterprises. Monitoring and control can be
applied to two types of factors:
(1) behaviors, and
(2) outputs resulting from the behavior (March and Simon, 1958).
Closer to our area of interest, prior research on issue selling proposed that employees
decide to raise issues to management by making an assessment of the context
favorability (Dutton et al., 2001). In addition, support from top management has been
found to predict taking charge behaviors (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). Although
research from this stream is concerned with the predictors of the decision to voice
specific issues, we argue that behaviors related to taking charge would be even less
probable than voice if the environment is unsupportive. For the current study, we
chose to examine a context that is proximal to the employee and focus on the influence
of organizational controls.
Supervisors use control systems when engaging employees in lucrative activities.
Two frequently-used types of monitoring in work situations are output control and
process control. Output control refers to the extent to which a supervisor relies on
results when monitoring, evaluating and rewarding employees. Conversely, process
control refers to the extent to which a supervisor relies on procedures and behaviors for
monitoring, evaluation, and rewarding purposes (March and Simon, 1958; Ouchi, 1975).
Output control would have a positive relationship with taking charge, given that when
supervisors rely primarily on controlling output subordinates are given more
autonomy and independence on how to reach the required output. It is therefore more
likely that an output control-based system gives subordinates the space needed to
engage in taking charge behaviors (i.e. adopting improved procedures, changing how
the job is executed, correcting faulty processes, and eliminating redundant or
unnecessary tasks). On the contrary, a process monitoring system should be negatively
related to taking charge, provided that employees are evaluated according to their
compliance with an existing process. Indeed, researchers confirmed the positive
relationship between employees perception of control and submitting ideas for
improvement (Frese et al., 1999; Speier and Frese, 1997). More recently, Ohly et al.
(2006) demonstrated that job control, measured as the degree to which an individual
can influence the methods of doing his or her job, is positively related to creative and
proactive behaviors.
Additional support is provided by a series of studies of Deckop et al. (1999, 2004), on
the effects of rewarding IRB on ERBs. The results support the idea that encouraging
employees to maximize their required output can have the undesirable effect of
employees reducing the effort devoted to ERBs. By clearly specifying behaviors that
will be rewarded, organizations risk to discourage behaviors that will not be explicitly
rewarded (Deckop et al., 1999). Researchers argued that situations requiring strict
employee adherence to pre-specified job processes and procedures (referred to as
Taylorist jobs), are not conducive to employee engagement in ERBs (Hunt, 2002).
H5a. Output control is positively related to taking charge behaviors.
H5b. Process control is negatively related to taking charge behaviors.

Extra-role
behaviors

625

JMP
21,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

626

Methods
Sample and procedure
The study was conducted in a work organization situated in the Mid-Atlantic area of
the USA. We collected data from one facility, where the participants were engaged in
jobs of a technical and administrative nature (e.g. machine operator, maintenance
specialist, administrative assistant), with a distribution of 63.9 percent in line and
36.1 percent in administrative jobs. The unit had the goal to support the organization
with inventory ordering, inventory maintenance, warehousing, and shipping of
mechanical equipment and parts. This particular setting, and the nature of the tasks,
ensured sufficient in the monitoring methods used by the supervisors, as well as in the
dependent variable, taking charge.
We used questionnaires to collect data from 246 employees at the beginning of an
information session related to policy changes in the organization. The surveys were
distributed and collected by the human resource staff affiliated with the company and
subsequently made available to the researchers. Of the responses provided by
employees, 211 surveys contained usable information (85.77 percent). Of these
respondents, 65 percent had at least some college education, 86 percent were 30 years
or older, 76 percent had worked for the organization for more than four years and
73 percent had been on the current position for more than four years.
Measures
We used previously published scales to collect data relevant for the study. Unless
otherwise indicated, all measures were assessed using a five-point Likert-type scale
(1 strongly disagree; 2 disagree; 3 neither agree nor disagree; 4 agree;
and 5 strongly agree).
Propensity to trust. We used five items from Mayer and Davis (1999) to assess
propensity to trust. An item reads, Most people can be counted on to do what they
say they will do. Cronbachs a for this scale in our study was 0.64. The scale was
validate in prior studies (Mayer and Davis, 1999), where the estimated reliability
was 0.60.
Employee exchange ideology. Employee exchange ideology was assessed using the
eight-item scale taken from Eisenberger et al. (1986). The estimated reliability using
Cronbachs a for our study was 0.79. A sample item is, Employees should not care
about the organization that employs them unless the organization shows that it cares
about its employees.
Output control. A seven-item output control scale was adapted from Jaworski and
MacInnis (1989). An example item is, My immediate supervisor monitors the extent to
which I achieve my goals. Cronbachs a for this scale in our study was 0.85.
Process control. We adapted the seven-item process control scale provided by
Jaworski and MacInnis (1989). An item reads My immediate supervisor monitors the
extent to which I follow established procedures. Cronbachs a for this scale in our
study was 0.71.
Taking charge. We used the ten-item scale from Morrison and Phelps (1999) to
measure taking charge behaviors. A representative item is, I often try to change how
my job is executed in order to be more effective. Cronbachs a for this scale in our
study was 0.90.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

Organizational citizenship behavior (individual-focused). OCBI was measured using

the scale provided by Williams and Anderson (1991). An example of an item is, I help
others who have heavy workloads. Cronbachs a for this scale in our study was 0.90.
Organizational citizenship behavior (organization-focused). We assessed OCBO with
the scale of Williams and Andersons (1991). One item reads, I adhere to informal rules
to maintain order. Estimated reliability (using Cronbachs a) for this scale in our study
was 0.70.
In-role behavior. We used the scale of Williams and Anderson (1991) to measure
IRB. I fulfill the responsibilities specified in my job description is an item example.
Cronbachs a for this scale in our study was 0.80.
Analyses
As in prior studies testing the convergent and discriminant validity of
challenging-promotive and affiliative-promotive ERB constructs (Van Dyne and
LePine, 1998), and similar to studies on taking charge (Morrison and Phelps, 1999), we
ran confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). Specifically, we used structural equation
modeling with EQS (Bentler, 2002) to test H1. We used maximum likelihood estimation
with the covariance matrix of the items as input; the indexes provided by EQS were
used to assess the model fit. For convergent validity, we evaluated whether each item
had a statistically significant loading on its posited underlying factor. To establish
discriminant validity, we tested a series of hierarchically nested models. Following the
suggestions of Hu and Bentler (1998, 1999), we provide information on the
standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) and several other indexes, such as
the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne and Cudeck, 1993), the
non-normed fit index (NNFI; Tucker and Lewis, 1973) and the comparative fit index
(CFI; Bentler, 1990). We used a 0.90 criterion for the CFI and NNFI, as recommended by
Medsker et al. (1994) and used in previous studies related to these constructs (Morrison
and Phelps, 1999); similarly, the cutoff scores were 0.08 for the SRMR and 0.06 for the
RMSEA, as recommended by Hu and Bentler (1998, 1999). In addition, changes in x 2
tests were used to evaluate the best model fit to the data.
For the rest of the hypotheses (H2-H5), we used multiple regression (Cohen et al.,
2003). To minimize multicollinearity when testing for the moderating hypothesis, we
mean-centered each variable prior to creating the interaction term (Cohen et al., 2003).
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis
We ran a CFA to test H1, which predicted that IRB, OCBI, OCBO and taking charge
variables would emerge as four separate factors (Table I, Model 1). Results from this
analysis showed that all the factor loadings for the items were significant ( p , 0.001)
and corresponded to their respective latent constructs, thus indicating convergent
validity. Specifically, for our construct of interest, taking charge, the item loadings
were between 0.55 and 0.80, with majority of them being around 0.70. Furthermore, in
order to asses discriminant validity, we compared the four factor model (Model 1) with
five other nested models: three-factor models (Model 2a: OCBI and taking charge (as one
factor), OCBO, and IRB; Model 2b: OCBO and taking charge (as one factor), OCBI, IRB;
and Model 2c: taking charge and IRB (as one factor), OCBI, and OCBO), a two-factor
model (Model 3: OCBI, OCBO, and taking charge as one factor and IRB as another

Extra-role
behaviors

627

JMP
21,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

628

Table I.
Model comparisons and
fit statistics

Model

Description

1
2a
2b
2c
3
4

Four-factor model
Three-factor modela
Three-factor modela
Three-factor modela
Two-factor modela
One-factor modela

x2

DF

Dx 2

DDF

CFI

NNFI

SRMR

RMSEA

700.90
920.03
824.61
1267.09
1003.83
1431.12

415
418
418
418
420
421

219.13
133.71
566.19
302.93
730.22

3
3
3
5
6

0.91
0.84
0.87
0.73
0.81
0.68

0.90
0.82
0.87
0.70
0.79
0.64

0.07
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.11

0.06
0.08
0.07
0.10
0.08
0.11

Notes: aComparisons were made with Model 1. All x 2 values are significant at p , 0.001.
CFI comparative fit index; NNFI non-normed fit index; SRMR standardized root-mean-square
residual; RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation. Model 1: OCBI, OCBO, taking charge,
IRB; Model 2a: OCBI and taking charge (as one factor), OCBO, IRB; Model 2b: OCBO and taking charge
(as one factor), OCBI, and IRB; Model 2c: taking charge and IRB (as one factor), OCBI, and OCBO;
Model 3: OCBI, OCBO, and taking charge (as one factor) and IRB (as another factor); and Model 4: all
items loading onto one factor

factor); and a one-factor model (Model 4: all items loading on one factor). We used a x 2
difference test and improvements in goodness-of-fit indices to evaluate which model
fitted the data best. The hypothesized four-factor model emerged as the best fit to the
data (Table I, Model 1), as compared with the alternative models. Therefore, the results
from the CFA provide further evidence that the taking charge scale is distinct from
both IRB and ERBs directed at the organization and at the individual.
Based on the above results, we formed composite variables for the constructs of
the study. Means, standard deviations and correlations are provided in Table II. The
pattern of predictions was, in general, consistent with our predictions. Consistent with
prior studies measuring types of control (Jaworski and MacInnis, 1989), output and
process control were correlated, indicating that supervisors use both methods of
monitoring and performance assessment.
Variables
Individual-related
1. Propensity to trust
2. Employee exchange ideology
Supervisor-related
3. Output control
4. Process control
Extra-role behaviors
5. Taking charge behavior
6. OCBI
7. OCBO
In-role behaviors
8. In-role behavior
Table II.
Means, standard
deviations, and zero-order
correlationsa

SD

2.82
2.72

0.58
0.81

20.11

3.43
3.30

0.75
0.68

3.64
3.92
4.15
4.24

0.02
0.07

20.12
20.05

0.62

0.68
0.58
0.49

0.16
0.10
20.01

20.14
20.20
20.12

0.25
0.26
0.30

0.14
0.28
0.27

0.43
0.38

0.45

0.55

20.12

20.05

0.21

0.17

0.30

0.36

0.61

Notes: n 221, all correlations higher than or equal to/0.13/significant at p , 0.05; all correlations
higher than or equal to/0.19/significant at p , 0.01, OCBI individual-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors; OCBO organization-directed organizational citizenship behaviors;
IRB in-role behaviors

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

Tests of hypotheses
H2-H4 predicted that individual-related variables, such as propensity to trust (H2),
employee exchange ideology (H3) and their interaction (H4) would be related to taking
charge behaviors. The results from the regression analysis (Table III) show that
propensity to trust was related to taking charge (b 0.14, p , 0.05), while exchange
ideology was negatively related to taking charge (b 2 0.14, p , 0.05). This
provides support for H2 and H3. In addition, our results indicate that exchange
ideology moderated the relationship between propensity to trust and taking charge
(b 2 0.14, p , 0.05). Following the guidelines provided by Cohen et al. (2003),
we examined the directionality of the interaction effect (Figure 2). As expected, the
relationship between propensity to trust and taking charge was stronger under weak
employee exchange ideology than under a strong condition. Thus, these results provide
support for H4.
H5a predicted that output control would be positively related to taking charge. The
regression results (Table III) indicate that output control had a positive and significant
relationship with taking charge (b 0.25, p , 0.01), providing support for this
hypothesis. Similarly, H5b predicted that process control would be negatively related
to taking charge behaviors. However, the data did not provide support for our
prediction (b 2 0.02, ns).
Predictors
Individual-related
Propensity to trust (PT)
Employee exchange ideology (EEI)
PT *EEI
Supervisor-related
Output control (OC)
Process control (PC)
R2
F
Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001

H1-H3

Extra-role
behaviors

629

H4 and H5

0.14 *
2 0.14 *
2 0.14 *

0.06
4.65 * *

0.27 * *
2 0.02
0.06
7.13 * * *

Table III.
Regression analyses:
individual- and
supervisor-related
predictors of taking
charge

Figure 2.
Moderating effect of
employee exchange
ideology on the
relationship between
propensity to trust and
taking charge

JMP
21,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

630

As our data were based on responses from the same employees, we attempted to
determine if single-source bias might present a problem in the current sample.
Specifically, we attempted to isolate the potential covariance due to artifactual reasons
using Harmans one-factor test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Harmans one-factor test
relies on factor analysis to test the existence of a single factor solution. These authors
assume that substantial common method variance would correspond to the presence of
one general factor, which will explain the majority of variance in the variables. Using
the linear composites of all the constructs in our model, we ran a factor analysis. The
factor analysis solution did not indicate that one single factor explains the majority of
original variance in the study variables. As a result, this presents additional support
for the fact that common method bias does not seem to be a major concern for the
current dataset.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was twofold:
.
to examine the distinctiveness of taking charge behaviors from IRB and OCBs
directed at the individual and organizational levels; and
.
to test hypotheses related to important but previously untested predictors.
Our four-factor model received support indicating that the four constructs are
distinct and offer a different perspective to employee behaviors in the workplace.
This research extends the previous work of Morrison and Phelps (1999) by
comparing taking charge behaviors against a different conceptualization of OCBs
and a complete IRB scale. We tested our model on a sample of line and
administrative employees, which extends prior research on managers. This finding
is particularly important, because it provides support for the idea that employees
in different non-managerial positions differentiate between citizenship, in-role, and
taking charge behaviors.
In addition, this study sought to confirm individual- and supervisor-related
predictors of taking charge behaviors. From the individual-related factors, both
propensity to trust and employee exchange ideology influence taking charge
behaviors. We extend prior research which linked propensity to trust and
affiliative-promotive ERBs (OCBs, Van Dyne et al., 2000), by showing that
propensity to trust also predicts challenging-promotive behaviors, such as taking
charge. As expected, employee exchange ideology predicted taking charge behavior.
Specifically, employees with strong exchange ideologies are less likely to engage in
taking charge behaviors. One possible explanation is that employees with strong
exchange ideologies perceive their exchanges with the employing organizations as
transactional. Since, a transactional relationship consists of quid-pro-quo and
short-term exchanges, these employees might not have sufficient incentives to take
charge and engage in challenging-promotive behaviors directed at increased
organization functioning. Conversely, employees with weak exchange ideologies
appear to be more likely to engage in taking charge behaviors. This is a result of the
employees relational, open exchanges with the organization.
We found that employees exchange ideology moderates the relationship between
propensity to trust and taking charge. In addition to the direct effects of employees
ideological construal of their relationship with their employing organization, this factor

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

can also operate as a boundary condition. Thus, employees with a weak exchange
ideology and high propensity to trust will engage more in taking charge behaviors.
Conversely, employees with a stronger quid-pro-quo conceptualization of exchanges
will be less proactive in taking charge, despite their high propensity to trust. As
predicted, a strong exchange ideology attenuates the relationship between propensity
to trust and taking charge. In addition to the specific prediction pattern, our results also
show the importance of employees perceived exchanges with their work organization
for their subsequent engagement in or disengagement from behaviors such as taking
charge.
From the supervisory-related factors, we examined the importance of output
control (positively related to taking charge) and process control (no relationship
with our outcome of interest). Our results indicate that employees are more likely to
engage in taking charge behaviors if their supervisors use monitoring systems that
focus on outputs, as opposed to a normative monitoring of behaviors or compliance
with organizational processes and procedures. This might be due to the lack of
constraints associated with output controls, versus the rigor of a process control
evaluation by the supervisor. While we provide evidence for the existence of these
direct effects in our study, future research should explore the mechanisms by which
perceived controls influence taking charge behaviors in more detail. For example,
output control might influence employees taking charge behaviors because of
employees perception of a more flexible work situation or higher job control (Ohly
et al., 2006). Studies exploring these relationships could provide a clearer
specification of the intervening factors.
Limitations
This study is not without limitations. First, because the data are cross-sectional, cause
and effect relationships as well as the causal direction, cannot be established and are
subject to alternative explanations. Second, the self-report nature of the data might
cause common method bias. As noted in prior research (Crampton and Wagner, 1994;
Spector, 1994), this limitation is a factor of the research question and the variables used
in the study. The results of the Harmans one test factor presented above suggest that
common-method bias should not be of major concern for this study.
In addition, because of the perceptual nature of all the independent variables in this
study, self reported responses represent the only option to collect data for these
variables. Although information on other variables might have been obtained from
organizational agents such as managers, we followed the guidelines of other
researchers for obtaining this type of data. For example, Van Dyne and LePine (1998)
found that ERBs are characterized differently by the self, peers, and supervisors. They
proposed to use multiple sources of ratings for different purposes. Thus, these authors
maintain that self-reports should be appropriate for studies that involve
self-conceptualization, self-image, self-representation, or self-development (p. 118).
On the contrary, perceptions of others are critical when attempts are made to determine
feedback, promotions, transfers, and merit increases (p. 118). Because the focus of our
study is on employee data related to individual factors and their perceptions of
supervisor-related factors, we collected data directly from the employees. Our data
collection strategy is in line with other researchers who recommend that data be
collected from the focal employee, particularly given that supervisors might not

Extra-role
behaviors

631

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

JMP
21,7

always be the best source of information (because) they might not witness such
actions (Niehoff et al., 2001, p. 108). Finally, the measure of propensity to trust had
lower estimated reliability than conventionally accepted levels, but higher than in prior
work (Mayer and Davis, 1999). Given our results, future researchers are advised to use
a scale with adequate psychometric properties.

632

Theoretical and practical implications

Despite the above limitations, the study has potential theoretical and practical
implications. Theoretically, this study provided further support for the distinction
between taking charge and other OCBs, strengthening the literature on taking charge
in particular and on ERBs in general. Specifically, we found support for the conceptual
difference between taking charge and OCBI, OCBO, and IRB. Furthermore, we
extended the existing taking charge studies by examining if such behaviors generalize
from employees in managerial positions (Morrison and Phelps, 1999) to employees in
line and administrative positions. Finally, this study identified new predictors of
taking charge behaviors at the individual- and supervisor-levels. Of importance, is the
fact that these promotive-challenging behaviors are a function of how employees
construe their exchanges with their organizational and of the supervisory controls used
for monitoring.
From a practical perspective, to the extent these findings generalize to other
settings, managers can use them in their specific work situations. First, understanding
the similarities and differences between taking charge and other OCBs can help
managers distinguish between these types of behaviors, which can lead to better
preparation of their employees to take charge of various aspects of work in the
organization. Second, in situations when this is possible by the nature of the task,
managers may enhance the use of output control, thus giving the employees the
possibility to engage in behaviors directed at challenging suboptimal processes and
procedures.
Future research
In this study, we examined if taking charge, a challenging-promotive behavior,
was distinct from affiliative-promotive behaviors such as OCBs. However, we also
hope that our study provides an impetus for other researchers to consider
comparisons with challenging-promotive ERBs, such as voice (Van Dyne and
LePine, 1998) and individual participation (Moorman and Blakely, 1995),
affiliative-prohibitive ERBs, such as stewardship, and challenging-prohibitive
ERBs, such as whistle-blowing (Miceli and Near, 1985) or principled organizational
dissent (Graham, 1986). In addition, consistent with prior findings (Klieman et al.,
2000), it would be advisable to test empirically if the employees perceive taking
charge as an in-role or an ERB.
Other individual- and organization-level factors can be included in future
research on taking charge. For example, several authors have suggested that ERBs
have individual-level antecedents such as proactivity (Bateman and Crant, 1993;
Campbell, 2000; Crant, 2000). One of the components of proactivity is challenging
the status quo, which should predict functional behaviors that challenge the
established ways of doing business, such as taking charge. Although we explored
predictors related to supervisory controls, other organization- and team-level

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

predictors (i.e. organizational culture, team climate, norms, situational cues, and
public or private setting) are likely to influence taking charge behaviors, and
should be further examined. In addition, while we extended prior research with
novel predictors, it would also be important to explore operating mechanisms of
these antecedents in influencing taking charge behaviors. This would contribute to
determining how individual-level predictors, combined with components of the
work context, influence taking charge behaviors.
References
Arthur, J.B. (1992), Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and
turnover, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 670-87.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S. and Chen, Z.X. (2002), Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 267-85.
Bateman, T.S. and Crant, J.M. (1993), The proactive component of organizational behavior:
a measure and correlates, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 103-18.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 107, pp. 238-46.
Bentler, P.M. (2002), EQS, A Structural Equation Program, Version 6.0, Multivariate Software,
New York, NY.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in Bollen, K. and
Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136-62.
Campbell, D.J. (2000), The proactive employee: managing workplace initiative, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 52-67.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Coleman, V.I. and Borman, W.C. (2000), Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship
performance domain, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-44.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A-M., Taylor, S.M., Shore, L.M. and Tetrick, L.E. (2004), Commonalities and
conflicts between different perspectives of the employment relationship: towards a unified
perspective, in Coyle-Shapiro, J.A-M., Taylor, S.M. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds),
The Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual Perspectives,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Crampton, S.M. and Wagner, J.A. (1994), Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational
research: an investigation of prevalence and effect, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79
No. 1, pp. 67-76.
Crant, J.M. (2000), Proactive behavior in organizations, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 435-62.
Daft, R.L. and Lewin, A.Y. (1993), What are the theories for the new organizational forms?
An editorial essay, Organizational Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. i-vi.
Deckop, J.R., Mangel, R. and Cirka, C.C. (1999), Getting more than you pay for: organizational
citizenship behavior and pay-for-performance plans, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 420-8.
Deckop, J.R., Merriman, K.K. and Blau, G. (2004), Impact of variable risk preferences on the
effectiveness of control by pay, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 77, pp. 63-80.

Extra-role
behaviors

633

JMP
21,7

Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., ONeill, R.M. and Lawrence, K.A. (2001), Moves that matter: issue
selling and organizational change, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4,
pp. 716-35.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), Perceived organizational
support, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-7.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

634

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001), Reciprocation of
perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Erdogan, B., Sparrowe, R.T., Liden, R.C. and Dunegan, K.J. (2004), Implications of organizational
exchanges for accountability theory, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 14,
pp. 19-45.
Festinger, L. (1954), A theory of social comparison processes, Human Relations, Vol. 40,
pp. 427-48.
Frese, M., Teng, E. and Wijnen, C.J.D. (1999), Helping to improve suggestion systems: predictors
of making suggestions in companies, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 7,
pp. 1139-55.
Graham, J.W. (1986), Principled organizational dissent: a theoretical essay, in Staw, B.M. and
Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 8, JAI Press, Greewich,
CT, pp. 1-52.
Graham, J.W. (1991), An essay on organizational citizenship behavior, Employee
Responsibilities & Rights Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 249-70.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 424-53.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure modeling:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6,
pp. 1-55.
Hunt, S. (2002), On the virtues of staying inside the box: does organizational citizenship
behavior detract from performance in Taylorist jobs?, International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 152-9.
Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D. and Miles, E.W. (1987), A new perspective on equity theory: the
equity sensitivity construct, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 222-34.
Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1989), Marketing jobs and management controls: toward a
framework, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, pp. 406-19.
Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. and Jick, R.D. (1992), The Challenge of Organizational Change: How
Companies Experience and Leaders Guide It, Free Press, New York, NY.
Klieman, R.S., Quinn, J.A. and Harris, K.L. (2000), The influence of employee-supervisor
interactions upon job breadth, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 587-605.
LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D.E. (2002), The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 52-65.
McNeely, B.L. and Meglino, B.M. (1994), The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in
prosocial organizational behavior: an examination of the intended beneficiaries of
prosocial behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 836-44.
March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.

Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair work procedures and treatment on work
relationships, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-48.

Extra-role
behaviors

Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (1999), The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for
management: a field quasi-experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1,
pp. 123-36.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), An integrative model of organizational
trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-15.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

Mayer, R.C. and Gavin, M.B. (2005), Trust in management and performance: who minds the
shop while the employees watch the boss?, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48
No. 5, pp. 874-88.
Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J. and Holahan, P.J. (1994), A review of current practices for
evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management
research, Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 439-64.
Miceli, M.P. and Near, J.P. (1985), Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived
wrongdoing associated with whistle-blowing decisions, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 38,
pp. 525-44.
Miles, E.W., Hatfield, J.D. and Huseman, R.C. (1989), The equity sensitivity construct: potential
implications for worker performance, Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 581-8.
Milliken, F.J., Morrison, E.W. and Hewlin, P.F. (2003), An exploratory study of employee silence:
issues that employees dont communicate upward and why, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1453-76.
Moon, H., Van Dyne, L. and Wrobel, K. (2005), The circumplex model and the future of
organizational citizenship behavior research, in Turnipseed, D.L. (Ed.), Handbook of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Review of Good Soldier Activity in Organizations,
Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY.
Moorman, R.H. and Blakely, G.L. (1995), Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference
predictor of organizational citizenship behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 16, pp. 127-42.
Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F. (2000), Organizational silence: a barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 706-25.
Morrison, E.W. and Phelps, C.C. (1999), Taking charge at work: extrarole efforts to initiate
workplace change, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 403-19.
Niehoff, B.P., Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G. and Fuller, J. (2001), The influence of empowerment
and job enrichment on employee loyalty in a downsizing environment, Group &
Organization Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 93-114.
Nikolaou, I. (2003), Fitting the person to the organisation: examining the personality-job
performance relationship from a new perspective, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 18, pp. 639-48.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S. and Pluntke, F. (2006), Routinization, work characteristics and their
relationships with creative and proactive behaviors, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 27, pp. 257-79.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.

635

JMP
21,7

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

636

Organ, D.W. (1990), The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behaviors, in

Cummings, L.L. and Straw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 12, JAI,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-72.
Organ, D.W. (1997), Organizational citizenship behavior: its construct clean-up time, Human
Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ouchi, W.G. (1975), Organizational control: two functions, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 559-69.
Ouchi, W.G. (1979), A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control
mechanisms, Management Science, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 833-48.
Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. (1986), Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1996), Competing for the Future, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Rotter, J.B. (1980), Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility, American Psychologist,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Ryan, D.K. and Oestreich, D.K. (1998), Driving Fear Out of the Workplace: Creating High Trust,
High Performance Organization, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), Organizational citizenship behavior: it nature
and antecedents, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 653-63.
Spector, P.E. (1994), Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of
controversial method, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 385-92.
Speier, C. and Frese, M. (1997), Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between
control and complexity at work and personal initiative: a longitudinal field study in
East-Germany, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 171-92.
Tucker, L.R. and Lewis, C. (1973), A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor
analysis, Psychometrika, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L. and McLean Parks, J. (1995), Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddled waters), Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 215-85.
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of
construct and predictive validity, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 108-19.
Van Dyne, L., VandeWalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M.E. and Cummings, L.L. (2000),
Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizational
citizenship in a non-work setting, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 3-23.
Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E.H. (1979), Toward a theory of organizational socialization, in
Staw, B.M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 1, Jai Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 209-64.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 601-17.
Witt, L.A. (1991), Exchange ideology as a moderator of job-attitudes-organizational citizenship
behaviors relationships, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 18, pp. 1490-501.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

About the authors

Dan S. Chiaburu performs evaluation and human capital-related work in Washington DC. His
research to date appeared in the International Journal of Training and Development, the Journal
of European Industrial Training, and the Journal of Social Psychology. Dan S. Chiaburu is the
corresponding author and he can be contacted at: chiaburu@globic.us
Vicki L. Baker is a doctoral student in Higher Education Administration with a minor focus in
Management and Organization at The Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests
include the doctoral student experience, preparation of future faculty, professional identity, and
mentoring. E-mail: vlb151@psu.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Extra-role
behaviors

637

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF SARGODHA At 03:34 15 October 2014 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Mary Sue Love, Susan L. Dustin. 2014. An investigation of coworker relationships and psychological
collectivism on employee propensity to take charge. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 25, 1208-1226. [CrossRef]
2. Al-Karim Samnani, Sabrina Deutsch Salamon, Parbudyal Singh. 2014. Negative Affect and
Counterproductive Workplace Behavior: The Moderating Role of Moral Disengagement and Gender.
Journal of Business Ethics 119, 235-244. [CrossRef]
3. Katharina Tornau, Michael Frese. 2013. Construct Clean-Up in Proactivity Research: A Meta-Analysis
on the Nomological Net of Work-Related Proactivity Concepts and their Incremental Validities. Applied
Psychology 62:10.1111/apps.2013.62.issue-1, 44-96. [CrossRef]
4. Jixia Yang, Yaping Gong, Yuanyuan Huo. 2011. Proactive personality, social capital, helping, and turnover
intentions. Journal of Managerial Psychology 26:8, 739-760. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Wm. Matthew Bowler, Jonathon R.B. Halbesleben, Jeff. R.B. Paul. 2010. If you're close with the leader,
you must be a brownnose: The role of leadermember relationships in follower, leader, and coworker
attributions of organizational citizenship behavior motives. Human Resource Management Review 20,
309-316. [CrossRef]
6. Martin Gartmeier, Stefanie Hetzner, Hans Gruber, Helmut Heid. 2009. Fehlerorientierung und
Eigeninitiative im Bankensektor. Zeitschrift fr Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O 53, 149-162.
[CrossRef]
7. Dan S. Chiaburu, Audrey S. Lim. 2008. Manager Trustworthiness or Interactional Justice? Predicting
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics 83, 453-467. [CrossRef]
8. Dan S. Chiaburu, Sophia V. Marinova, Audrey S. Lim. 2007. Helping and proactive extra-role behaviors:
The influence of motives, goal orientation, and social context. Personality and Individual Differences 43,
2282-2293. [CrossRef]
9. Adrian Furnham. 2007. Managerial psychology: stateoftheart. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22:6,
610-621. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]