Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Summary
In recent years, there has been increasing interest in positive organizational scholarship in general, including
positive organizational behavior (POB) in particular. This work identies organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB) as a prototypical POB. Conceptualizing OCBs in this way is sensible in light of more than 30 years of
research highlighting the desirable aspects of such behavior. At the same time, some researchers have raised
questions about positive organizational scholarship and have called for a more balanced view of ostensibly
positive behaviors. The purpose of this paper, then, is to take a more nuanced view of OCBs while highlighting
the dark side of citizenship behavior. In doing so, we review conceptual and empirical work that has challenged
the idea that OCBs are inherently positive. We also discuss research that seeks to develop a deeper understanding
of the conditions under which OCB does more harm than good. Finally, important areas for future research and
the practical realities facing scholars who seek to publish research investigating the dark side of citizenship are
addressed as well. Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior; positive organizational behavior; too-much-of-a-good-thing
effect
The positive psychology movement has sought to better understand desirable human traits and behaviors and to
investigate factors that enable people to function more effectively (e.g., Gable & Haidt, 2005; Seligman &
Csikszenmihalyi, 2000). In recent years, scholars have become interested in applying this perspective in
organizational contexts (e.g., Bernstein, 2003; Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012; Dutton & Glynn, 2008). Organizational
behavior researchers have specically focused on positive organizational behavior (POB; e.g., Luthans, 2002; Luthans
& Youssef, 2007; Wright & Quick, 2009) and have endeavored to learn more about traits, capabilities, and behaviors
that lead employees to help others, build connections, and thrive at work. One behavior that has been described as
a prototypical POB is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Luthans & Youssef, 2007; Cameron, Dutton, &
Quinn, 2003).
Organizational citizenship behaviors refer to employee acts that support the broader social and psychological
environment in which tasks are carried out in organizations (Organ, 1997). These actions are typically considered
more discretionary and less likely to be rewarded and punished in organizations than in-role task performance
(Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). In other words, citizenship behaviors are those behaviors that often go
beyond an employees job description and include acts like helping others, taking on additional responsibilities,
putting in extra hours, defending the organization, and speaking out about important organizational issues
(Organ et al., 2006). Although the OCB construct was developed decades before the concept of POB had been
introduced, it is easy to see why OCBs might be considered a prototypical POB. Indeed, OCBs have undeniably
positive aspects, and investigations of OCB typically emphasize and highlight these positive features.
*Correspondence to: Mark C. Bolino, Price College of Business, Division of Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A. E-mail: mbolino@ou.edu
543
In early research, OCBs were described as being analogous to prosocial behavior (Organ, 1988). In fact, initial
studies referred to the interpersonal helping dimension of OCB as altruism (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), and many researchers operationalize prosocial behaviors
by using measures of OCB (e.g., De Cremer, Mayer, Schouten, Bardes, & van Dijke, 2009). Moreover, OCBs
are associated with both positive antecedents and consequences. For instance, OCBs result from positive job
attitudes, positive affect, encouraging leadership, a supportive organizational climate, and so on (Organ et al.,
2006). Likewise, reviews and meta-analyses show that OCBs are associated with various indicators of group and
organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009)
and that employees who perform OCBs are typically evaluated more favorably by their supervisors with regard to
their overall job performance and promotability (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 2009).
Finally, it has also been argued that citizenship behavior facilitates a positive working environment, which enables
organizations to attract and retain employees (Organ, 1988; Organ et al., 2006). Overall, then, there is considerable
evidence that OCBs t within the POB framework along some important dimensions.
However, as interest in POBs has grown, some researchers have raised questions and concerns about the positive
organizational scholarship movement and have called for a more balanced view of ostensibly desirable behaviors (e.g.,
Fineman, 2006). Consistent with these calls, others have questioned the notion that OCBs are unambiguously positive.
In particular, Bolino, Turnley, and Niehoff (2004) challenged prevailing assumptions about OCB in three ways. First,
they suggested that OCBs are not necessarily prosocial and that they may stem from self-serving motives (e.g., impression
management), more mundane motives (e.g., boredom with in-role tasks), and even negative forces (e.g., transgressions
and dissatisfaction with ones personal life). Second, they posited that citizenship could have negligible or even negative
effects on organizational performance, particularly when OCBs are of low quality or are performed instead of in-role
tasks. Finally, they argued that employees who engage in OCBs may experience greater role ambiguity, role overload,
job stress, and workfamily conict, particularly if they feel pressured to engage in such behaviors. As such, they
suggested that there may be negative consequences for employees when OCBs are common in the workplace.
Although provocative, many of the ideas in their paper were based more on speculation than evidence; however,
in recent years, researchers have published a number of conceptual papers and empirical studies indicating that
OCBs are not always positive. To date, though, this research has not been reviewed in any systematic way. Therefore, in this paper, we examine the growing body of research that has highlighted the darker aspects of OCB. Although we do not dispute the notion that OCBs have many positive qualities, by highlighting the darker aspects
of OCB, we hope to provide a more balanced view of such behaviors (Fineman, 2006) and to encourage future
investigations that might consider the possibility that OCBs can have potentially negative implications for individuals and organizations.
Our paper is organized around the three assumptions described by Bolino et al. (2004). We rst describe research
that has highlighted the personal and professional costs of OCB. Then, we examine studies that have identied
citizenship motives that are not necessarily positive. Finally, we consider research describing how the link between
OCBs and group-level performance may be equivocal or even negative. Throughout this review, we highlight the
ndings of studies that challenge the notions that organizations where OCBs are commonplace are desirable for
employees, that OCBs are analogous to prosocial behavior, and that OCBs contribute to the effective functioning
of organizations. Moreover, we conclude each section by identifying directions for future research that seek to
develop a deeper understanding of the conditions under which OCB can be harmful. Last, we address some of
the practical realities facing scholars who seek to publish research investigating the dark side of citizenship.
544
M. C. BOLINO ET AL.
The assumption here is that employees enjoy working in an environment where everyone supports one another and
is willing to go the extra mile to help the organization succeed (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). Clearly, there should be
some genuine appeal to working in such organizations; moreover, being part of an organization where employees
are poor organizational citizens who are unwilling to help one another and do not care about the organization and
its objectives is likely to be dissatisfying and demotivating. However, a workplace where citizenship is the norm
is not necessarily a blessing for all employees. Indeed, a number of studies have indicated there may be a dark side
to working in organizations where OCBs are prevalent. Later, we describe the personal and professional costs of
OCB that have been identied in this work. The studies highlighted in this section are summarized in Table 1.
Resource-allocation framework
Resource-allocation framework
Individual initiative
Citizenship pressure
Vigoda-Gadot (2006)
Vigoda-Gadot (2007)
Bergeron (2007)
Article
Findings or implications
As a result of time constraints, employees who engage in OCB use
resources for these behaviors, which they then cannot use for task
performance. Thus, there is potential for a negative relationship
between OCB and task performance
Employees who spent more time on OCB had lower salary increases
and advanced more slowly than employees who spent less time on OCB
Investigated the effects of individual initiative, a specic type of OCB
that involves behaviors such as coming to work early or staying late,
working at home, rearranging personal plans because of work, and
taking on special projects. Individual initiative was positively related
to role overload, job stress, and workfamily conict, and the relationship
between individual initiative and workfamily conict was particularly
strong among women
Introduced citizenship pressure, which is a specic job demand in which
an employee feels pressured to perform OCBs (p. 836). Citizenship
pressure was related to higher levels of OCB, and this relationship was
stronger among unmarried employees and those low in conscientiousness.
Citizenship pressure also predicted workfamily conict, workleisure
conict, job stress, and intentions to quit
OCB was positively related to workfamily conict, but this relationship
was weaker among highly conscientious employees
Employees engage in OCB to signal that they are valuable members of the
organization, and they make a calculated decision about what type of OCB
to perform depending on the perceived necessity of demonstrating their
value to the organization
High levels of citizenship are associated with low levels of job satisfaction
for individuals with low levels of optimism
Introduced job creep, which refers to the slow and subtle expansion of
job duties (p. 181), which is not recognized by supervisors or the
organization
Introduces compulsory citizenship behaviors, which occur when supervisors
or other powerful individuals increase employees workloads beyond their
job descriptions in an effort to elicit higher levels of performance out of
employees
Compulsory citizenship behaviors positively related to job stress,
organizational politics, intentions to quit, negligent behavior, and burnout,
and negatively related to innovation, job satisfaction, and in-role performance
Table 1. Articles about the personal and professional costs of citizenship behavior.
545
546
M. C. BOLINO ET AL.
compulsory citizenship behaviors (CCBs), which he demonstrated is associated with job stress, negligent behaviors,
intentions to quit, and other negative outcomes (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007).
Somewhat differently, Bolino et al. (2010) argued that even when employees recognize that OCBs are not
required, they may still feel pressured to perform such behaviors. Thus, they dene citizenship pressure as a specic
job demand in which employees feel pressured to engage in OCBs. Bolino et al. (2010) found a positive relationship
between citizenship pressure and OCB even when controlling for other determinants of OCB (e.g., conscientiousness
and job satisfaction) and other job demands (e.g., role overload). Furthermore, employees who experienced
citizenship pressure reported higher levels of workfamily conict, workleisure conict, job stress, and intent to
quit. Thus, when employees feel obligated to engage in OCBs, organizations may benet from the higher levels of
citizenship; however, at the same time, employees may suffer from increased job stress and from their work
interfering with their personal or family lives.
While job creep, compulsory citizenship, and citizenship pressure have negative implications for employee wellbeing, the actual performance of OCB may also have personal costs. In particular, Organ and Ryan (1995) noted that
OCBs could contribute to stress and overload. Exploring this idea, Bolino and Turnley (2005) found that employees
who engaged in individual initiative (a specic type of OCB that involves behaviors such as working weekends,
taking on additional assignments, and attending work-related events on ones personal time) experienced increased
levels of job stress, role overload, and workfamily conict. Furthermore, the relationship between individual
initiative and workfamily conict was stronger among women than men. In another study, Halbesleben, Harvey,
and Bolino (2009) found that engaged employees were more likely to perform OCBs, but that OCBs, in turn,
contributed to higher levels of workfamily conict. Further, they found that the relationship between OCB and
workfamily interference was moderated by employees level of conscientiousness, suggesting that highly
conscientious employees are better able to balance their citizenship behaviors and their family obligations than their
less conscientious coworkers. The ndings of these studies were among the rst to suggest that being a good
soldier can have personal costs for employees.
547
Directions for future research on the personal and professional costs of citizenship
Although there is some evidence that OCBs can have personal and professional costs, additional work in this area is
needed. As previously discussed, researchers have introduced and developed different ideas and constructs that
address the reality that employees sometimes feel required, pressured, or coerced into performing OCBs. This can
range from cases in which employees simply view OCBs as part of their job to instances where managers force
employees to engage in OCBs (or CCBs). Arguably, citizenship pressure and job creep lie somewhere along this
continuum. Whereas some of these concepts have been empirically examined (e.g., citizenship pressure and
CCB), others (e.g., job creep and escalating citizenship) have not. Empirical investigations that enable us to better
understand these constructs, how they may be similar or distinct, and their effects on a wider array of outcomes
would be useful. For instance, it would be helpful to know if it is the pressure to perform OCBs, the lack of freedom
or discretion in performing OCBs, or the ever-increasing levels or ratcheting up of OCBs that is most harmful to
employee well-being. Likewise, although most research has examined (and measured) the quantity or frequency
of OCBs that employees perform, it is possible that OCBs performed under coercion or pressure may be of a lower
quality than those that are truly discretionary. Examining this possibility is particularly important given that lowquality citizenship may be less likely to facilitate organizational effectiveness (Bolino, 1999).
As noted earlier, Bolino and Turnley (2005) found that engaging in OCB can lead to role overload, stress, and
workfamily conict. However, the focal OCB in their study (i.e., individual initiative) tends to be rather timeconsuming. Likewise, Halbesleben et al. (2009) found a link between another time-consuming OCB (i.e., interpersonal
helping) and workfamily conict. It is unclear, though, whether engaging in OCBs contributes to stress and work
family interference only because of the time and energy that employees devote to such behaviors. Indeed, some OCBs,
such as tolerating inconveniences at work (i.e., sportsmanship) and touching base with others (i.e., courtesy), are less
likely to require signicant time and energy. Thus, some types of OCBs may be more likely to have personal costs than
others. In addition, the ndings of Halbesleben et al. (2009) regarding the personality trait conscientiousness suggest
that some employees nd engaging in OCBs to be more costly than others, based on their disposition. Thus, there
may be individual differences (e.g., skills and personality) and contextual factors (e.g., workload and family situation)
that make going the extra mile more difcult or costly for certain individuals, both personally and professionally.
As previously discussed, it is often suggested that engaging in OCBs can make employees jobs more enjoyable
and rewarding (Organ et al., 2006). At the same time, studies such as the one by Munyon et al. (2010) indicate that
engaging in too many OCBs can undermine job satisfaction. It might be especially worthwhile, then, to view OCB
from a too-much-of-a-good-thing (TMGT) lens and to consider the possibility of non-montonic effects with regard
to citizenship (Grant & Schwartz, 2011; Pierce & Aguinis, in press). Indeed, both Grant and Schwartz (2011) and
Pierce and Aguinis (in press) specically mentioned OCB as a behavior that might have harmful effects at extreme
levels. In other words, OCBs seem more likely to have negative personal and professional consequences when
performed under intense pressure, when they are carried out at extreme levels, and when they are performed at
the expense of other important behaviors.
Grant and Schwartz (2011) suggested that researchers investigating the TMGT effect focus on understanding how
much is too much and determining why and when negative effects are most likely to occur. Similarly, Pierce and
Aguinis (in press) encouraged researchers to identify context-specic inection points in order to better understand
when something positive can become negative. Applying these suggestions to future research might help us better
understand the dark side of citizenship for employees. For instance, it has been argued that engaging in OCBs can
consume time and resources that may detract from in-role performance (Bergeron, 2007). At the same time, prior
research indicates that employees who are good organizational citizens tend to be evaluated more favorably
(Podsakoff et al., 2009). Engaging in OCBs, then, may have differing effects on ones personal and professional
outcomes as the quantity of OCB performed increases. At relatively low levels, engaging in OCBs may help one
be perceived as a better employee while having little inuence on ones level of stress. At moderate levels, OCBs
may increase the level of stress and workfamily conict that the employee experiences, but those personal
consequences may be offset by the positive effect that such behavior has on the individuals professional outcomes.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
548
M. C. BOLINO ET AL.
However, when OCBs are taken to the extreme or performed instead of ones in-role responsibilities, such behavior
may harm the individual both personally and professionally.
Pierce and Aguinis (in press) also suggested that researchers may need to consider the possibility that excessive
levels of a construct, and its darker side, may, in fact, constitute an entirely different construct altogether. This is
similar to Vigoda-Gadots notion that coerced OCBs are better thought of as CCBs. Consideration, then, should
be given to the possibility that extreme levels of OCB are best conceptualized as a unique construct apart from
OCB. Overall, it would be worthwhile to determine the most appropriate conceptualization of OCBs performed
under pressure or carried out at extreme levels and to better understand when, where, how, and why the personal
and professional benets of OCB tend to accrue while identifying the point at which engaging in such behavior starts
to cause harm and how this occurs.
Impression management
Impression management and social networks
Within-person structure and
counterproductive
work behavior
Impression-management
Perceived instrumentality
Moral licensing theory
Impression management
Bolino (1999)
Article
Findings or implications
549
550
M. C. BOLINO ET AL.
are times that engaging in OCB may have a particularly positive effect on the reputation of an employee. In these
types of circumstances, image-conscious employees are likely to perform OCBs not to benet their organization
or its members but to improve their standing in the workplace.
Empirical studies support the idea that employees may undertake OCBs for impression-management purposes.
For example, Hui, Lam, and Law (2000) found that when employees perceived that OCBs heightened their
advancement opportunities, they engaged in increased levels of citizenship behavior before promotion decisions.
Moreover, those who subsequently earned promotions decreased their level of OCBs immediately following the
promotion decision, suggesting that workers adjust their level of OCBs in accordance with the degree to which
engaging in such behaviors will help them achieve their personal goals. In addition, Yun, Takeuchi, and
Liu (2007) demonstrated that self-enhancement motives positively relate to OCBs targeting the organization
and further showed that as role ambiguity increases, employees become particularly likely to engage in OCBs
to improve their image. Finally, integrating the good soldier and good actor perspectives, Grant and Mayer
(2009, Study 1) found that impression-management motives strongly relate to interpersonal citizenship, and
this relationship is strengthened by prosocial motives. Taken together, these and a number of other studies
(e.g., Bowler & Brass, 2006; Finkelstein, 2006; Snell & Wong, 2007) support the notion that although
OCB is dened by its positive contributions to organizational performance (Organ, 1997), the motives underlying
these good deeds can be driven by enhancement of ones own image, rather than the betterment of the organization
or its members.
551
552
M. C. BOLINO ET AL.
Further, research suggests that OCBs are evaluated differently depending on the type of citizenship and the gender of
the employee (e.g., Heilman & Chen, 2005). It is unclear, though, what role gender plays in the process of making
attributions for OCB. Is the same behavior equally likely to be ascribed to impression-management versus
altruistic motives when performed by men and women, and are male and female managers likely to make the same
types of attributions regarding the motives for their employees behaviors? Finally, it is possible that certain
individuals (e.g., high self-monitors) may be more likely to engage in OCBs for impression-management reasons
yet have those behaviors ascribed to more desirable motivations. Clearly, additional studies are needed to increase
our understanding of how darker motivations (and darker attributions of motives) inuence the performance of and
outcomes associated with OCBs.
Table 3. Articles about OCB and individual, team, and organizational performance.
Article
Task interdependence
Bolino (1999)
Impression management
Challenge-oriented OCB
Resource-allocation framework
Norm of reciprocity
Findings or implications
High or low levels of OCB harmed group
performance when task interdependence
was low
Proposed that OCB performed for impressionmanagement motives would have less of an
effect on organizational performance compared
with OCB performed for other motives
Challenge-oriented OCB had a curvilinear effect
on work group performance, and this effect was
moderated by afliation-oriented OCB
Task interdependence moderated the relationship
between OCB and group performance, such that
OCB had a neutral to negative effect in groups
where task interdependence was low
Employee helping was negatively related to workunit performance
553
citizenship behavior is motivated by self-enhancement reasons. However, Organ et al. (2006) challenged this idea
and pointed out that there is little empirical evidence supporting the notion that there is a differential impact on
organizational effectiveness between OCBs that are motivated by image concerns and those driven by other motives.
Although there is little direct evidence to validate Bolinos (1999) contention, some prior work provides indirect
support for the idea that OCBs driven by impression-management motives may be less benecial to organizations
than OCBs motivated by prosocial values or concern for the organization. As noted earlier, several studies indicate
that supervisors discount citizenship behavior and are less inclined to reward it when they perceive it is driven by
selsh motives. For instance, Eastman (1994) found that when supervisors interpreted the good deeds of employees
as acts of ingratiation, rather than acts of citizenship, they reduced the amount of rewards associated with those good
deeds. A number of other studies have replicated this nding by demonstrating that supervisors assign more
favorable performance ratings when they attribute employee behavior to benevolent intentions than when they feel
that employees have engaged in good behavior for self-enhancing purposes (Allen & Rush, 1998; Grant, Parker, &
Collins, 2009; Johnson et al., 2002). Given that supervisor ratings are the primary indicator of employees
contributions to organizational effectiveness (Judge & Ferris, 1993), this line of work lends some credence to
Bolinos (1999) argument that the degree to which citizenship behavior enhances organizational functioning is
reduced to the extent to which it is driven by self-enhancement motives.
554
M. C. BOLINO ET AL.
555
Aggregated across the work unit, the harm to coworker well-being caused by one rate-buster, then, could
ultimately undermine the collective functioning and output of the group. Likewise, in the examples mentioned in
the prior paragraph, OCBs such as sportsmanship and courtesy may be helpful up to a point, but extreme levels
of such behavior may be problematic. As such, investigations of the TMGT effect in relation to citizenship behaviors
should explore the impact of excessive OCBs at the group and organization level.
Concluding Thoughts
Over 30 years of research has highlighted the positive nature of OCB and how citizenship can have desirable
implications for both employees and organizations alike (Organ et al., 2006). Over the past decade, the emergence
of positive organizational scholarship, and POB in particular, has encouraged researchers to focus even more
heavily on positive interactions and behaviors in organizations (e.g., Bernstein, 2003; Cameron & Spreitzer,
2012; Dutton & Glynn, 2008; Luthans, 2002; Luthans & Youssef, 2007; Wright & Quick, 2009). However,
Fineman (2006) suggests that it is often difcult to distinguish the positive from the negative and calls for a more
nuanced and balanced understanding of behaviors, such as OCB, which are ostensibly positive. A similar call for a
more balanced view of OCB was made by Bolino et al. (2004), and a number of researchers have explored the
ways in which OCBs may have personal and professional costs, darker motives, and negative implications for
the effective functioning of individuals, teams, and organizations. In this paper, we reviewed this recent literature
and identied directions for future research that might further examine the idea that OCBs can be negative in
different ways. We conclude our paper with two pieces of advice to researchers interested in investigating the dark
side of citizenship.
First, because OCBs are undeniably positive in many ways, it may sometimes be difcult to uncover the
negative aspects of citizenship. For this reason, proper theory, research design, and measurement are especially
important. For instance, it has been argued that some employees who engage in OCB may neglect their in-role
responsibilities (Bergeron, 2007; Bolino et al., 2004), but as noted by Organ et al. (2006), the average
correlation between OCB and in-role performance is positive and quite strong (r = .50). This nding, then,
suggests that the notion that engaging in OCBs could undermine in-role performance is dubious. However, a
deeper examination might yield a different conclusion. In particular, Bergeron (2007) offered an explanation
for why researchers have seldom found a negative correlation between OCB and in-role performance.
Specically, she observed that studies of OCB and in-role performance have typically been conducted in
contexts where employee resources (i.e., time) are relatively unlimited. According to her theorizing, in contexts
where time is a relatively xed commodity, the relationship between citizenship behavior and in-role
performance is actually negative.
There may also be methodological reasons for the strong, positive relationship that has commonly been found
between OCB and in-role performance. For instance, when OCB and in-role performance are measured using
different rating sources, the average correlation between them is actually quite weak (r = .08; Organ et al., 2006),
which suggests that these behaviors are unrelated. In most studies, though, supervisors provide ratings of both
in-role performance and OCB, making it highly unlikely that a negative relationship will be found in such work.
Put simply, the strength of the correlation between task performance and OCB may be articially inated by
common-method bias and perceptpercept ination (Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,
& Podsakoff, 2003).
Furthermore, established measures of OCB often capture behaviors that would generally be considered in-role,
which may also increase the likelihood that these variables will be positively correlated. For instance, items that
assess OCB directed at the organization include behaviors such as taking undeserved work breaks and giving
advance notice when unable to work (Williams & Anderson, 1991), and measures of conscientiousness (a specic
type of OCB) include behaviors such as attendance at work being above the norm, not taking extra breaks, and
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
556
M. C. BOLINO ET AL.
believing in giving an honest days work for an honest days pay (Podsakoff et al., 1990). In addition to the clear
conceptual overlap with measures of in-role performance, these measures also have questionable relevance in the
context of white-collar employees or professionals, even though they are commonly used in such settings because
they are accepted measures of OCB. Unfortunately, when researchers use established scales without modifying them
to account for the breadth of their respondents job roles (Morrison, 1994), they risk collecting, analyzing, and
reporting data on in-role performance while labeling it OCB.
Given these issues, researchers seeking to deepen our understanding of the negative aspects of OCB must think
carefully about how to design studies and develop theories and measures that will allow them to nd such effects.
For instance, in Bolino and Turnleys (2005) examination of the personal costs of OCB, they focused on how
behaviors such as staying at work after normal business hours, participating in community activities for the benet
of the organization, and rearranging or altering personal plans because of work might contribute to job stress, role
overload, and workfamily conict. To do so, they developed a measure of individual initiative that was more
appropriate for the sample of working professionals in their study than existing measures of conscientiousness
that focus on punctuality, obeying rules, and so forth. Although they found support for their hypotheses, it is
unlikely that traditional measures of employee conscientiousness would be correlated with the focal outcomes in
their study.
Second, as a practical matter, researchers hoping to investigate the dark side of OCB should realize that there may
be some resistance from reviewers to any study that challenges the notion that OCBs are positive. For instance, those
who seek to demonstrate that OCBs might undermine organizational performance may encounter reviewers who
argue that OCBs are, by denition, behaviors that facilitate the effective functioning of organizations. Thus,
reviewers may suggest that any study that nds that citizenship harms organizational performance cannot really
be examining OCBs. Similarly, there may be reviewers who maintain that helping ones supervisor or colleague
in order to look good is an impression-management tactic, not an OCB. According to this mindset, only behaviors
stemming from a desire to help the organization, or others, should be considered OCB.
In our view, OCBs are best conceptualized as specic acts of going the extra mile (e.g., instances of helping,
taking on additional tasks, and defending the organizations) that are not inherently positive or negative; nevertheless,
given that OCBs are typically conceptualized in positive ways, the hurdles to publishing such work may sometimes
be higher. Of course, Davis (1971) suggested that papers that contradict our common understanding of a
phenomenon tend to be more interesting than those that conrm commonly held beliefs. As such, we believe that
there is much to be gained by investigating the dark side of OCB.
Author biographies
Mark C. Bolino is a professor of management and the Michael F. Price Chair in International Business in the Price
College of Business at the University of Oklahoma. He received his PhD from the University of South Carolina. His
research interests include organizational citizenship behavior, impression management, global careers, and psychological contracts.
Anthony C. Klotz is doctoral candidate in organizational behavior and human resources in the Price College of
Business at the University of Oklahoma. His research interests include organizational citizenship behavior, team
conict, employee resignation, and counterproductive work behavior.
William H. Turnley is a professor of management and the Forrer Chair of Business Ethics at Kansas State University. He received his PhD from the University of South Carolina. His research interests include psychological contracts, organizational citizenship behavior, impression management, and business ethics.
Jaron Harvey is an assistant professor of management in the College of Business at the University of Wyoming. He
received his PhD from the University of Oklahoma. His research focuses on why employees go the extra mile for
their organizations, and the individual and career consequences of these behaviors.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
557
References
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A eld study
and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247260.
Arthaud-Day, M. L., Rode, J. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2012). Direct and contextual effects of individual values on organizational
citizenship behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 792807.
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., & Richey, R. G. (2006). Effects of task interdependence on the relationship
between helping behavior and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 13961405.
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.
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of
Management Review, 32, 10781095.
Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (in press). Organizational citizenship behavior and career outcomes: The
cost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management. DOI: 10.1177/0149206311407508
Bernstein, S. D. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Meet the movement. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 266271.
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. The
Academy of Management Executive, 17, 6071.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual
initiative and role overload, job stress, and workfamily conict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740748.
Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives
and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 10801109.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505522.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., & Suazo, M. M. (2010). Citizenship under pressure: Whats a good soldier to do?
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 835855.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about
organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 229246.
Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: A social network perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 7082.
Cabrera, E. F. (2008). Protean organizations: Reshaping work and careers to retain female talent. Career Development
International, 14, 186201.
Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (Eds.) (2012). Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. London: Oxford
University Press.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. (2003). Foundations of positive organizational scholarship. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton,
& R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 313). San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. (1994). Perceptpercept ination in microorganizational research: An investigation of
prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 6776.
Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L. (2009). A within-person approach to work behavior and
performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenshipcounterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and
overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 10511066.
Davis, M. S. (1971). Thats interesting!: Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy
of the Social Sciences, 1, 309344.
De Cremer, D., Mayer, D. M., Schouten, B. C., Bardes, M., & van Dijke, M. (2009). When does self-sacricial leadership
motivate prosocial behavior: It depends on followers prevention focus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 887899.
Dutton, J. E. & Glynn, M. A. (2008). Positive organizational scholarship. In J. Barling, & C. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook
of organizational behavior: Volume 1: Micro approaches (pp. 693712). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenship
behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 13791391.
Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. F., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Organizational politics and citizenship: Attributions of
intentionality and construct denition. In Martinko, M. J. (Ed.). Advances in attribution theory: An organizational perspective
(pp. 231252). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management Review, 31, 270291.
Finkelstein, M. A. (2006). Dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior: Motives, motive fulllment, and role
identity. Social Behavior and Personality, 34, 603616.
558
M. C. BOLINO ET AL.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and
organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
59, 291309.
Gable, S., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9, 103110.
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as
interactive predictors of afliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900912.
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 6, 6176.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you
value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62, 3155.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship
between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 14521465.
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to mens and womens altruistic
citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 431441.
Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A eld
quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 822828.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and ascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifin.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386408.
Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Liking and attributions of motives as mediators of the
relationships between individuals reputations, helpful behaviors and raters reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 808815.
Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36,
80105.
Kidwell, R. E., & Bennett, N. (1993). Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of
research. Academy of Management Review, 18, 429456.
Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. (in press). Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: A moral licensing view. Academy of
Management Review. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2011.0109
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.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
695706.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321349.
Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Challenge-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors and
organizational effectiveness: Do challenge-oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organizations bottom line?
Personnel Psychology, 64, 559592.
McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role
breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efcacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
12001211.
Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. In P. Z. Mark, & M. O.
James (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 115155). Boston: Elsevier Academic Press.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role denitions and organizational citizenship behaviour: The importance of the employees perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 15431567.
Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrew, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2010). Optimism and the nonlinear citizenship behaviorjob
satisfaction relationship in three studies. Journal of Management, 36, 15051528.
Nielsen, T. M., Bachrach, D. G., Sundstrom, E., & Halfhill, T. R. (2012). Utility of OCB: Organizational citizenship behavior and
group performance in a resource allocation framework. Journal of Management, 38, 668694.
Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of
Management Review, 2, 4653.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 4372). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 8597.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship
behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775802.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and
consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
559
Ozer, M. (2011). A moderated mediation model of the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 13281336.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, J. (in press). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management. DOI:
10.1177/0149206311410060
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). An examination of the psychometric properties and nomological validity of some
revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 702713.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance:
A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10, 133151.
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, & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in
personnel and human resources management (Vol. 11, pp. 140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
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. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107142.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of
organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122141.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 13061314.
Salamon, S. D., & Deutsch, Y. (2006). OCB as a handicap: An evolutionary psychological perspective. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27, 185199.
Seligman, M. E. P. & Csikszenmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 514.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68, 653663.
Snell, R. S., & Wong, Y. L. (2007). Differentiating good soldiers from good actors. Journal of Management Studies, 44,
883909.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010a). Theorizing about the deviant citizen: An attributional explanation of the interplay of
organizational citizenship and counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 132143.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2010b). Counterproductive work behavior and organisational citizenship behavior: Are they opposite
forms of active behavior? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 2139.
Turnley, W. H., Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. (2013). Crafting an image at anothers expense: Understanding unethical
impression management in organizations. In R. A. Giacolone, & M. D. Promislo (Eds.), Handbook of unethical work behavior
(pp. 123139). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Van Dyne, L., & Ellis, J. B. (2004). Job creep: A reactance theory perspective on organizational citizenship behavior as overfulllment of obligations. In J. A. M. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employment
relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 181205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redenition,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765802.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome in
organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36, 7793.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees performance. Personnel Review, 36,
661683.
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, 601617.
Wright, T. A., & Quick, J. C. (2009). The emerging positive agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 147336.
Yun, S., Takeuchi, R., & Liu, W. (2007). Employee self-enhancement motives and job performance behaviors: Investigating the
moderating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 745756.