JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL.

17,253-266 (1996)

Dispositional and contextual determinants of

organizational citizenship behavior
MARY A. KONOVSKY
A . B. Freeman School of Business, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, U.S.A.

AND
DENNIS W. ORGAN
School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, U.S.A.

Summary This study of 402 professional and administrative employees of a VA hospital addressed
the question of whether certain dispositional factors (Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
and Equity Sensitivity) could account for the relationship between contextual work
attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Findings indicate this not to
be the case. Fairness/satisfaction had independent effects on OCB. Additionally,
Conscientiousness predicted some forms of OCB. Neither Agreeableness nor Equity
Sensitivity affected OCB. Implications are noted for further inquiry into OCB.

Introduction

Students of organizational behavior have recently shown interest in the qualitative distinctions
among individual contributions at work. Some of this interest has focused on ‘organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB)’ or contributions not contractually rewarded nor practicably
enforceable by supervision or a job description.
The early research on OCB (e.g. Bateman and Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ and Near, 1983)
sought to demonstrate that job satisfaction would predict this form of contribution better than it
would traditional in-role or productivity measures of performance. More recent research (Farh,
Podsakoff and Organ, 1990; Moorman, 1991), however, indicates that measures of fairness
predict OCB better than do measures of job satisfaction, and that satisfaction is unrelated to
OCB when fairness is statistically controlled. One explanation for this finding is that fairness
cognitions underlie much of the variance in measures of job satisfaction, and perceived fairness
promotes the trust by which participants enter into noncontractual exchange with the
organization and/or its agents (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994).
Presumably, job satisfaction and fairness measures capture rather strong and pervasive
attitudes concerning the context of work. The implication of this is that correlations between
contextual attitudes and OCB reflect the extent to which cumulative experience in the workplace
inhibits or facilitates nonrequired contributions. This interpretation, however, is challenged by
recent findings arguing that supposedly contextual attitudes are at least partly dispositional in
nature (Schneider and Dachler, 1978; Staw and Ross, 1985; Staw, Bell and Clausen, 1986). The

CCC 0894-3796/96/030253- 14 Received 30 September 1993

01996 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 5 April 1995
254 M. A. KONOVSKY AND D. W . ORGAN

evidence supporting this argument is the rather impressive test-retest correlations in job attitude
measures found by researchers over long time periods, even when people change jobs and
employers. Also, Arvey, Bouchard, Segal and Abraham (1989) presented evidence from a study
of identical twins separated at birth that a significant portion of the variance in job satisfaction
may be due to a genetic component.
To be sure, the argument that disposition determines contextual work attitudes has not
escaped criticism. Davis-Blake and Pfeffer (1989) pointed out that test-retest correlations testify
to consistent rank-orderings of job attitudes rather than stability in absolute terms, and indeed
Newton and Keenan-Further (1991) showed that job changes were in fact accompanied by
changes in job attitudes, even though test-retest correlations were substantial. Finally,
Cropanzano and James (1990) noted that the twin-study data of Arvey et al. (1989), by
attenuating variance across work situations, might have inflated the coefficients of heritability of
attitudes. Thus, the debate as to the contribution of disposition and situation to determining
contextual work attitudes is far from settled.
The important point of this discussion for our study is that if disposition is an important
determinant of work attitudes perhaps disposition also determines OCB; thus disposition could
explain why attitudes and OCB are related-i.e. both being common effectsof disposition, rather
than attitudes determining OCBs. If identifiable, theoretically and descriptively sound
dimensions of personality account for substantial variance in work attitudes, and if those same
personality dimensions have strong connections to OCB, then perhaps disposition, and not
contextual attitudes, demand major attention in the explanation of OCB. The purpose of this
paper, therefore, was to determine whether the ability of work attitudes to predict OCB is a
spurious relationship rather than a theoretically meaningful relationship, as previously inter-
preted.
As discussed previously, the most plausible theoretical interpretation of the empirical
relationship between fairness and OCB lies in the ability of fairness to promote trust, and thus
evoke social exchange, which results in OCB. We now turn to the reasons why certain
dispositional variables might predict OCB.

Predicting OCB from disposition:

Rationale and specification
The defensibility of dispositional variables as predictors of OCB requires theoretical grounds for
believing that some+-even if unspecified-dimensions of personality should determine some
forms of OCB. An empirical test poses the additional requirement that we specify particular
dimensions of personality that are plausible candidates for simultaneously determining OCB and
attitudes.
Regarding the first requirement, Mischel (1977) argues that we should see the effects of
personality in ‘weak situations’, i.e. those whose ambiguity precludes uniform encoding by
persons, which do not generate uniform expectancies, and do not offer strong incentives for
performance. Arguably, OCB, which by definition is extra-role and not contractually rewarded,
occurs in such situations. Furthermore, the work of Tett, Jackson and Rothstein (1991), Hough
(1992), and Borman and Motowidlo (1993) suggests that personality predictors come into their
own when appropriate criteria are specified, and the stronger relationships appear to involve
those criteria that have much in common with OCB (Schneider and Hough, 1995).
With regard to the second requirement-the specification of simultaneous causal linkages
between specific personality dimensions and specific forms of OCB as well as contextual
 ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 255

attitudes-the empirically-derived five-factor model of personality referred to as the ‘Big Five’

(McCrae and Costa, 1987) contains promising leads. One factor in this model, is Agreeableness,
which is defined by adjective scales suggestive of friendliness, likeability, and the capacity for
‘getting along’ with others in pleasant, harmonious relationships. Agreeableness would seem to
relate particularly well to three forms of OCB: Altruism, or acts of helping specific individuals in
face-to-face interaction at work; Courtesy, which describes the gestures that people exhibit at
work to help prevent work problems for others; and Sportsmanship, or the inclination to absorb
minor inconveniences and impositions accruing from the job without complaints or excessive
demands for relief and redress.
Another factor in the Big Five, Conscientiousness,appears to capture the personal qualities of
dependability, planfulness, and perseverance. This factor might well have much to do with forms
of OCB that are more impersonal, i.e. not directed to specific persons but constitute commend-
able, constructive forms of supporting the larger context of organized efforts. Thus, Conscien-
tiousness is a plausible candidate for predicting the OCB dimension of Generalized Compliance,
which refers to contributions in the form of exemplary adherence to rules regarding attendance,
punctuality, use of time while at work, and respect for organizational property and resources.
Conscientiousness might also well be a personal quality underlying the OCB factor Civic Virtue,
e.g. attendance at meetings, keeping informed about developments that arise within or impinge
upon the organization, reading and answering mail, and otherwise practicing constructive and
appropriate forms of involvement in the governance of the workplace.
There are conceptual and empirical bases for thinking that Agreeableness and Conscientious-
ness would predict satisfaction as well as specific forms of OCB. McCrae and Costa (1991)
suggested that the interpersonal bonds fostered by Agreeableness and the achievements and well-
ordered life effected by Conscientiousness should contribute to general well-being, thus
promoting a capacity for finding satisfaction in work and other affairs. McCrae and Costa
administered a set of measures of psychological well-being (affect balance and a life satisfaction
index covering satisfaction with 14 areas in life, including work) to 419 adult subjects in 1979 and
1981. In 1986 these same subjects responded to a measure of the Big Five personality dimensions;
the researchers also obtained spouse ratings of the subjects on the personality dimensions.
McCrae and Costa found significant ‘postdiction’ of the quality of life measures from Agree-
ableness and Conscientiousness, with time-lagged correlations averaging about 0.14 for Agree-
ableness and slightly greater than 0.20 for Conscientiousness. The correlations for Agreeableness
were somewhat higher, in the 0.20’s, when spouse ratings of personality were used.
In addition to Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, Equity Sensitivity (Huseman, Hatfield
and Miles, 1985) looms as a potential dispositional variable that relates to both OCB and work
attitudes. In Huseman et al.’s conceptualization and measurement of this dimension, high-
scoring ‘Benevolents’have a higher threshold for perceptions of under-reward; thus, they should
be less vulnerable to feelings of unfairness and dissatisfaction. In addition, Benevolents
supposedly are more concerned with maximizing inputs, and therefore one would expect them to
go beyond role prescriptions and contribute in any or all forms of OCB. Low-scoring ‘Entitleds’,
by contrast, focus on outcome maximization and are quick to note any real or imagined
shortfalls or slights in treatment by supervision; one could imagine that Entitleds would more
often experience dissatisfaction with outcomes and feel a corresponding disinclination to
contribute more than is required. Intermediate-scoring ‘Equity Sensitives’ seek proportionality
in outcome-input ratios and would be expected to restrain OCB when under-rewarded, but
freely contribute in various forms of OCB when experiencing what they regard as their exchange
with supervision. Organ (1990) suggested that a person’s threshold for perceptions of unfairness
would be related to the tendency to contribute in forms of OCB and that this threshold could be
256 M.A. KONOVSKY AND D. W. ORGAN

dispositional in origin. While this quality might be part of the larger quality of Agreeableness,
Equity Sensitivity perhaps represents a more specific and direct measure of this orientation.
George and Brief (1992) have argued strongly for the importance of the trait ‘positive
affectivity’ in their model of ‘organizational spontaneity’, which has much in common with the
notion of OCB. Indeed, Staw et al. (1986) implicated this trait in accounting for the apparent
long-term stability in job satisfaction and the ability to predict job satisfaction from dispositional
ratings taken up to 30 years previously. However, the empirical record thus far shows affectivity-
toned measures of disposition to be, at best, weak predictors of OCB and unlikely to account for
the comparatively larger relationships between contextual attitudes and OCB. Smith et al. (1983)
reported correlations of -0.19 and -0.13 between neuroticism (a measure of trait negative
affectivity) with the OCB dimensions of Altruism and Generalized Compliance, relationships
that were much weaker than the correlations with job satisfaction. Organ and Konovsky (1989),
using subjects’ self-ratings of typical mood states over a period of six months, found neither
positive affectivity nor negative affectivity to predict OCB as well as contextual work attitudes.
George (1991) found a correlation of only 0.10 between positive affectivity and a measure of
altruism. Extroversion, regarded by some (e.g. Watson and Clark, 1991) as a surrogate for
positive affectivity, was found by Smith et al. (1983) and Barrick, Mount and Strauss (1993) to
have no significant relationship with supervisor ratings of OCB. More recently, Ball, Trevino and
Sims (1994) also found no significant relationship between negative affectivity and OCB. Finally,
a review by Organ (1994) of empirical studies of affectively-toned measures of personality and
OCB found only weak and, for the most part, nonsignificant relationships. Thus, despite the
position of George and Brief, we conclude that positive and negative affectivity, while probably
trait-related predictors of job satisfaction, do not warrant our attention in an examination of
dispositional variables that might account for the relationship between disposition and OCB.
In sum, this study sought to determine whether the relationship between fairness and OCB is
spurious or whether it is theoretically meaningful. The established relationship between
dispositional factors and work attitudes, and the potential, but untested, relationship between
dispositional factors and OCB may account for the correlations found between work attitudes
and OCB, thus indicating that the relationship between work attitudes and OCB is spurious. In
order to continue to have faith in the theoretical meaningfulness of the fairness-OCB relation-
ships already reported in the literature, the alternative hypothesis of a spurious relationship
between OCB and fairness must be eliminated.

Method
Subjects
The study’s data were collected from a hospital located in the south central United States. The
630 (37 per cent) employees voluntarily participated and were from all departments of the
hospital. Employees’ supervisors provided ratings of OCB. A complete employee questionnaire
and a complete supervisor rating of that employee’s OCB were obtained for 402 (24 per cent) of
the hospital’s employees. All analyses described below are based on the data from these 402
subjects. The employees in this group were 43 years old and had 15 years education, on average.
Slightly over half (56 per cent) were male. They had been employed at the hospital for an average
of 10.4 years.
 ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 257

Procedure
Hospital employees were informed of the survey by a memo from top management and union
officials. Employees voluntarily attended prescheduled meetings during work hours to complete
their questionnaires. Employees unable to attend these meetings were provided questionnaires
which they voluntarily completed on work time and returned, in sealed envelopes, to the
researchers. Supervisors were surveyed by a produced similar to that used for employees.

Measures
Organizational citizenship
behavior
We assessed five aspects of employees’ OCB. We used the altruism and generalized compliance’
scales originally developed by Smith et al. (1983). Three additional forms of OCB discussed by
Organ (1 988) were also included in this study. These additional factors included sportsmanship,
or the willingness to accept minor frustrations and inconveniences without fuss or complaint;
courtesy, or the extent to which an employee helps to prevent others’ problems by advance
consultation, information, and respect for others’ needs; and civic virtue (Graham, 1986), or
responsible and constructive involvement and participation in issues confronting the group and
organization. The OCB items were taken largely from scales developed by Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990) and MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter (1991).
A factor analysis of the OCB items (principle axis extraction and varimax rotation) was
conducted and five factors emerged (see Appendix A for a complete description of the results of
this factor analysis). Items that double-loaded or loaded on a factor different from that proposed
were eliminated. The resulting factors were similar to those developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990).
Table 1 contains the number of items and the reliabilities for the OCB scales.

Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness
McCrae and Costa’s forced choice adjective-pair format was used to provide measures of
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, two factors from the ‘Big Five’ framework (McCrae and
Costa, 1987). To prevent undue length in the questionnaire booklet, we chose 11 of 18 items and
11 of 22 items to assess Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, respectively. In a factor analysis
presented by McCrae and Costa (1987), all selected items showed loadings of at least 0.45 on the
relevant dimensions. Additionally, all items were selected with the intent to avoid the most
blatantly self-evaluative items, so as to minimize the threat of socially desirable responses. Eight
buffer items drawn from the three other scales of the Big Five were also included. We followed
McCrae and Costa’s procedure of providing a seven-point, unlabeled scale between polar
opposite adjectives, instructing employees to check the appropriate blank. The alpha coefficients
of reliability for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were 0.82 and 0.83, respectively.

I Smith et al. (1983) originally used the term ‘generalized compliance’ to refer to items reflecting the more impersonal
aspects of citizenship behavior. More recently, Organ (1988) relabeled this factor conscientiousness. The tcnn
‘conscientiousness’ is, however, also used by McCrae and Costa (e.g. 1987) to refer to one dimension in the five-factor
personality model. In order to avoid confusion, we will use the term generalized compliance to refer to the impersonal
aspects of citizenship behavior and conscientiousness to refer to the personality trait.
258 M. A. KONOVSKY AND D.W. ORGAN

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and zero-order correlations for the study variables
(N = 402)*
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Generalized
compliance (4)t 5.82 1.26 (0.84)
2. Altruismf (5) 5.46 1.26 O SO r (0.90)
3. Sportsmanshipf (5) 5.06 1.64 0.22r 0.32r (0.88)
4. Courtesyf (3) 5.92 1.16 0.55r 0.63r 0.45r (0.87)
5. Civic virtuef (2) 5.81 1.14 0.45r 0.57r 0.28r 0.57r (0.80)
6. Agreeablenessf 5.35 0.88 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.121 0.107 (0.82)
7. Conscientiousnessf 5.69 0.85 0.lSr 0.08 -0.02 0.07 0.137 0.44r (0.83)
8. Equity sensitivity$ 29.82 7.97 0.06 0.01 -0.07 -0.01 0.02 0.32r 0.24n (0.80)
9. Fairness/satisfaction/ j 4.85 1.14 0.llfl 0 . 2 l r 0.21r 0.22r 0.16(r 0.117 -0.01 0.04 (0.93)
* The alpha coefficients of reliability are displayed along the diagonal in parentheses.
t This is the number of items in the scale.
1This is a 7-point scale.
5 This scale is the sum of five items whose point value ranges from ‘0 to ‘10’.
I / This is a 5-point scale consisting of all items measuring perceived fairness and supervisor satisfaction.
rrp <O.OI; np<o.o5.

Equity sensitivity
We used Huseman et al.’s (1985) Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI), which employs a forced
choice format, asking respondents to allocate 10 points between two response choices for five
items. For each item, the response choices are those representing an ‘entitlement’preference that
emphasizes receiving outcomes, and a ‘benevolent’ preference that emphasizes rendering contri-
butions. We followed Huseman et al.’s procedure of scoring by summing points allocated to the
benevolent response. The alpha coefficient of reliability for the continuous scale was 0.802.

Perceived fairness
Perceived fairness, one of our measures of contextual attitudes, consisted of two items assessing
the procedural justice and two items assessing the distributive justice of supervisor’s decision-
making. These items were adapted from Tyler (1990) and included ‘How fair are the outcomes
you generally receive from your supervisor?’ and ‘Overall, how fair are the procedures your
supervisor uses to handle your problems?

Supervisor satisfaction
The supervisor satisfaction subscale of the Smith, Baker, Brannick, Chia, Eggleston, Gibson,
Johnson, Josephson, Paul, Reilley and Whalen (1987) revised version of the Job Descriptive
Index provided our second measure of contextual attitudes. Employees indicated the degree to
which 18 adjectives described their satisfaction with their supervisor.
Perceived fairness and satisfaction with supervision were assessed with reference to employees’
supervisors. The perceived fairness of supervisor decision-making and the satisfaction with

* Huseman er nl. (1985) sometimes use a categorical coding scheme when examining the ability of equity sensitivity to
predict other variables. In order to confirm that equity sensitivity did not predict citizenship behavior, fairness, or
satisfaction, we also conducted a series of ANOVAs using the three classes of equity sensitivity described by Huseman ef
nl. as the independent variable and OCB,fairness and satisfaction as the dependent variables. We examined the data for
both main effects and interactions and found no significant effects.
 ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 259

supervision would presumably loom large in determining employees’ overall estimates of

organizational fairness and job satisfaction, and would therefore also be critical in determining
OCB.
Data analysis revealed that our measures of fairness and satisfaction were highly correlated
(r = 0.75). Definitions of satisfaction (e.g. Smith, Kendall and Hulin, 1969) and independent
empirical evidence (e.g. Scarpello, 1987) indicate that fairness is a large component of our
notions of satisfaction. Cohen and Cohen (1983) recommend combining highly correlated
variables to form an index for purposes of multiple regression analysis. Consistent with this
suggestion, we combined the items measuring supervisor satisfaction and perceived fairness into
one scale to provide the contextual attitudes measure (a = 0.93).

Analytical method
We conducted a usefulness analysis (Darlington, 1968) to evaluate the ability of our work
attitudes measure, fairness/satisfaction,and our dispositional measures (agreeableness, conscien-
tiousness, and equity sensitivity) to predict OCB. A usefulness analysis employs hierarchical
regression to examine a predictor’s contribution to unique variance in a criterion beyond another
predictor’s contribution. This analytic approach thus allowed us to determine whether the
dispositional variables included in our study would override the ability of fairness/satisfactionto
predict OCB. Additionally, the regression coefficients for the individual variables would indicate
which dispositional variables were important in predicting OCB.

Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and zero-order correlations among
the study variables. These correlations do not, obviously, provide a good basis for eliminating
the hypothesis of a spurious relationship between work attitudes and OCB. Somewhat
surprising, however, is the rather weak connection between the dispositional measures and
attitudes, particularly since they might be expected to share some common method variance.
Table 2 displays the results of our usefulness analysis, as well as the regression analysis. The
usefulness analysis reveals that, with the exception of one OCB factor, Generalized Compliance,
when the dispositional variables are entered into the hierarchical regression in the first step, and
work attitudes are entered into the hierarchical regression in the second step, work attitudes are
able to predict significant variance in OCB beyond that of the ability of the dispositional
variables. In contrast, and with the exception of Generalized Compliance, when attitudes are
entered into the hierarchical regression in the first step and the dispositional variables are entered
into the hierarchical regression in the second step, disposition is not able to predict significant
variance in OCB beyond that predicted by work attitudes. In other words, therefore, in the case
of four of five OCB factors (e.g. Altruism, Courtesy, Civic Virtue, and Sportsmanship), the
relationship between fairness/satisfaction and OCB cannot be attributed to the relationship
between disposition and OCB, and thus the theoretical rationale of social exchange explaining
the occurrence of these forms of OCB remains plausible. This pattern of results is not changed if
each dispositional variable is separately analyzed in a usefulness analysis format with fairness/
satisfaction.
Table 2. Effects of disposition and attitudes on OCB
Independent variables Generalized Compliance Altruism Courtesy Civic Virtue Sportsmanship
(A) Usefulness analysis*
Disposition beyond attitudes 0.02f 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
Attitudes beyond disposition 0.01 0.052 0.042 0.03t 0.041
Disposition and attitudes 0.19t 0.222 0.207 0.20t 0.212

B (S.E.) P B (S.E.) p B B (S.E.) /? B (S.E.) p

(B) Regression analysis
Attitudinal variable
Fairness/satisfaction 0.10 (0.04) 0.llt 0.17 (0.04) 0.201 0.14 (0.04) 0.171 0.13 (0.04) 0.16t 0.22 (0.06) 0.192
Dispositional variables
Agreeableness 0.00 (0.01) 0.03 -0.06 (0.07) -0.05 0.06 (0.06) 0.05 0.04 (0.06) 0.03 0.12 (0.09) 0.07
Conscientiousness 0.22 (0.08) 0.151 0.15 (0.08) 0.107 0.08 (0.07) 0.06 0.16 (0.07) 0.llt -0.05 (0.10) -0.02
Equity Sensitivity 0.01 (0.01) 0.03 0.01 (0.01) 0.03 0.00 (0.01) 0.01 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 0.00 (0.02) 0.01
R2 0.04t 0.05t 0.04f 0.047 0.04t
* In the usefulness analysis, where the entry indicates ‘x’ beyond ‘y’, it means the increment in the square of the multiple correlation coefficient when ‘x’is added
following ‘y’. Otherwise, the entry is the multiple correlation coefficient.
t pt0.05.
$ p<O.oOl.
 ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 261

The one exception to the above results was for Generalized Compliance, which displayed the
opposite pattern of results compared to the remaining OCB factors. That is, work attitudes did
not predict significant variance in Generalized Compliance beyond that predicted by disposition,
however, the dispositional variables predicted significant variance in Generalized Compliance
beyond that of work attitudes. Thus, the dispositional variables predicted Generalized Compli-
ance, and the regression results at the bottom of Table 2 indicate that Conscientiousness is the
dispositional variable responsible for the ability of disposition to predict OCB.
In addition to Conscientiousness predicting Generalized Compliance beyond the ability of
fairness/satisfaction to predict this form of OCB, Table 1 indicates that Conscientiousness is
significantly correlated with fairness/satisfaction, suggesting the possibility that the observed
relationship between fairness and compliance may be determined by a simultaneous and positive
relationship between Conscientiousness and compliance and between fairness/satisfaction and
Conscientiousness. Thus, any empirically observed relationship between fairnesslsatisfaction
and compliance should be further scrutinized and perhaps suspected of being a spurious
relationship. For example, even our own regression analysis, which is found at the bottom of
Table 2, indicates a significant relationship between fairness/satisfaction and compliance.
Nevertheless, the causality implied in this significant beta coefficient is suspect, because the
significance of the relationship between fairness/satisfaction and compliance dissipates when
disposition is controlled. Our data demonstrate, therefore, that Generalized Compliance is one
OCB factor where the observed relationship between fairness and OCB may not be theoretically
meaningful, but may instead by a result of simultaneous and positive relationships between
disposition and OCB and work attitudes and OCB.
Our regression analysis, displayed in the bottom half of Table 2, examines the ability of
individual dispositional and attitudinal variables to predict the different types of OCBs. The
regression analysis revealed that, as we predicted, fairness/satisfactionwas significantlyrelated to
all five types of OCB. Also, Conscientiousness was significantly related to Generalized Compli-
ance and to Civic Virtue. Conscientiousness was also significantly related to Altruism, although
this result was not predicted. Finally, the significant relationship predicted between Agree-
ableness and three OCB elements: Altruism, Courtesy, and Sportsmanship; and the significant
relationships predicted between Equity Sensitivity and OCBs were not observed in our data.

Discussion

Our usefulness analysis gives strong indication that contextual work attitudes predict most
forms of OCB. However, in the case of at least one form of OCB, Generalized Compliance, it
is the dispositional variables, specifically, Conscientiousness, that predict OCB. One caveat
must be noted with regard to this latter result. The data regarding the relationships among
fairness/satisfaction, Conscientiousness, and Generalized Compliance are also consistent with a
non-theoretical and spuriousness explanation of the relationship between work attitudes and
OCB.
Additionally, our regression results indicate that, while not overwhelming the ability of
fairness/satisfactionto predict OCB, Conscientiousness accounts for unique variance in at least
three dimensions of OCB: Compliance, Altruism, and Civic Virtue. This finding is consistent
with a growing body of evidence that this dimension (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Barrick et al.,
1993), or some trait overlapping this dimension (Hough, 1992; Schneider and Hough, 1995),
262 M. A. KONOVSKY AND D. W.ORGAN

could be an important predictor of certain aspects of job performance that include OCB, as well
as customer service and law-abiding behavior.
In general, considering the various dispositional measures that have been examined in relation
to OCB, to date the Conscientiousness dimension-or, more likely, some derivative construct
thereof-stands as the only one encouraging a dispositional view of OCB. We should hasten to
add that we do not propose to ‘close the book’ on the idea that OCB has some considerable
dispositional origins. Several considerations suggest this would be premature.
First of all, there is now evidence (not known to us at the outset of this study) that the Big Five
rendering of traits, while useful at a globally descriptive level of personality, is not the most
promising approach to predicting workplace contributions. Hough’s (1992) findings suggest that
the Big Five dimensions are both too heterogeneous and incomplete to capture important
criteria. Her work found that the best dispositional predictors cut across some of the Big Five
dimensions, and that the Big Five confounds characteristics such as Dependability, Achieve-
ment, Potency, and Affiliation.
Second, the predictive power of our dispositional measures might well have been attenuated.
The data suggest ceiling effects-relatively high means and low variance-on the personality
measures in the group studied. Conceivably this restriction of range is due to a social desirability
artifact in self-report measures of traits such as Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
Interestingly, McCrae and Costa (1 99 1) found that Agreeableness predicted well-being better
when spouse ratings were used to measure that characteristic; perhaps other-ratings are less
subject to restriction of range. It is also possible that the restriction in range is attributable to the
inherent nature of the setting and group studied, i.e. hospital employees. One could argue that
health care organizations by their nature attract and/or select people at the upper ends of the
distribution on these traits. Schneider’s (1987) attraction/selection/attrition model would
support such reasoning. Alternatively, in a health care institution, perhaps normative pressures
on behavior blur the distinction between OCB and in-role performance.
In any case, one finds increasing consensus on the view that neatly partitioning variance in any
criterion behavior between disposition and context is fraught with difficulty. While personality
effects are predicted to explain maximum variance in ‘weak situations’, Weiss and Adler (1990)
have noted that ‘operationalizing the theoretical construct of situational strength in an
organizationally relevant way seems to us to be a particularly difficult task’ (p. 24). Furthermore,
the interaction between disposition and context, which commands eminent plausibility in
explaining OCB, resists disentanglement. While we looked post hoc for evidence of statistical
interaction and found no evidence of this, Buss (1987) noted that person-situation interactions
‘are not well captured by ANOVA solutions’ (p. 1215). Schneider (1990) contends that field
research that tries to find moderated effects of personality is ‘doomed’ to failure, because
selection, attraction, and attrition processes generally function to preclude the presence of
extremes at both ends of the distribution of any important trait, and that this attenuates the
changes of finding statistical interaction.
Note, too, that we did not measure ‘context’ as such, only attitudes (fairness, satisfaction)
about context, and assumed that veridical properties of context account for at least a substantial
portion of the variance in attitudes. Our measures could not address the issue of reciprocal
feedback loops between dispositional tendencies and the objective conditions of context. Thus,
our models are at best oversimplifications, since they ignore the plausible potential for such
feedback loops. One could argue that traits such as Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and
Equity Sensitivity predispose people to behaviors that elicit changes in context due to reactions
from others. One would suppose, however, that such effectswould have augmented rather than
attenuated the covariation between traits and contextual attitudes.
 ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 263

Note also that dispositions and contextual work attitudes combined accounted for no more
than 5 per cent of the variance in any of the OCB dimensions. Even allowing for measurement
error, attenuation, and other possible artifacts, this leaves a vast amount of OCB variance
unexplained. Conceivably, as noted above, better predictive power will come from taxonomies
other than the Big Five, such as Hough’s (1992) framework; Hogan, Hogan and Busch’s (1984)
measures of ‘service orientation’; or even Costa, McCrae and Dye’s (1991) facet scales of more
specific traits within the Agreeableness and Conscientiousness dimensions.
Clearly, no single study or small group of studies can settle such a large issue as the general
importance of disposition in explaining OCB or the comparative importance of disposition and
context. There are probably an infinite number of ways of conceiving aspects of both disposition
and context, and empirical science can only proceed incrementally on some priority of the most
theoretically plausible of the established and available modes of conceptualization and measure-
ment. This study, taken with previous findings, suggests that if there is a major dispositional
source of OCB, it is not to be found in the widely-cited framework of the Big Five factors (with
the possible exception of Conscientiousness), or in an affectively-toned approach to personality,
at least with the usual method of measuring such traits by self-ratings. While some might view
this as a ‘negative’finding, it arguably is a case where a negative finding is informative, because it
fails to support what otherwise seemed intuitively reasonable and argues for the need to
reexamine previously plausible notions.
Thus, we read the findings as further documentation for the effect of fairness on workplace
contributions, with a prompt for continued pursuit of a conceptual framework that assigns
proper roles to disposition as predictor of perceived fairness and to both disposition and
perceived fairness as determinants of OCB. We also see eventual implications for practice, with
balanced concern for managing workplace context and some thought to selection, at least for
those work arenas in which OCB is particularly important. Hopefully, research designs and
analytic strategies can be fashioned so as to identify the interactional dynamics by which
disposition and situation feed upon each other. Finally, we should not overlook the need for
more care in theoretical specification of the relevant dispositional constructs. Weiss and Adler
(1990) suggested that ‘OB researchers have barely scratched the surface of the ways in which
personality constructs may enter into theoretical systems’ (p. 43). One might extend their
statement as it applies to the interaction of personality, perceived fairness, and workplace
contributions.

References
Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Segal, N. L. and Abraham, L. M. (1989). ‘Job satisfaction: Environ-
mental and genetic components’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187-192.
Ball, G. A,, Trevino, L. K. and Sims, H. P., Jr. (1994). ‘Just and unjust punishment: Influences on
subordinate performance and citizenship behavior’, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 299-322.
Barrick, M. R. and Mount, M. K. (1991). ‘The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A
meta-analysis’, Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K. and Strauss, J. R. (1993). ‘Conscientiousness and performance of sales
representatives:Test of the mediating effects of goal setting’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,715-722.
Bateman, T. S. and Organ, D. W. (1983). ‘Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between
affect and employee “Citizenship”’, Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.
Borman, W. C. and Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). ‘Does personality predict job performance? It depends on the
criterion’. Paper presented at the symposium ‘Personality at Work’, 1993 meetings of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco.
264 M. A. KONOVSKY AND D. W. ORGAN

Buss, D. M. (1987). ‘Selection, evocation, and manipulation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
53, 1214-1221.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple RegressionlCorrelation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R. and Dye, D. A. (1991). ‘Facet scales for Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness: A Revision of the NEO Personality Inventory’, Personality and Individual Diyer-
ences, 12, 887-898.
Cropanzano, R. and James, K. (1990). ‘Some methodological considerations for the behavioral genetic
analysis of work attitudes’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 433439.
Darlington, R. B. (1968). ‘Multiple regression in psychological research’, Psychological Bulletin, 79,161-182.
Davis-Blake, A. and Pfeffer, J. (1989). ‘Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational
research’, Academy of Management Review, 14, 38-00.
Farh, J., Podsakoff, P. M. and Organ, D. W. (1990). ‘Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior:
Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction’, Journal of Management, 16, 705-722.
George, J. M. (1991). ‘State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76, 299-307.
George, J. M. and Brief, A. P. (1992). ‘Feeling g o o d 4 o i n g good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at
work-organizational spontaneity relationship’, Psychological Bulletin, 112, 3l(r329.
Graham, J. (1986). ‘Organizational citizenship informed by political theory’. Paper presented at Academy
of Management meetings, Chicago, IL.
Hogan, J., Hogan, R. and Busch, C. M. (1984). ‘How to measure service orientation’, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 167- 173.
Hough, L. M. (1992). ‘The “Big Five” personality variables--Construct confusion: Description versus
prediction‘, Human Performance, 5, 139-1 55.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D. and Miles, E. W. (1985). ‘Test for individual perceptions of job equity:
Some preliminary findings’, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1055-1064.
Konovsky, M. A. and Pugh, S. D. (1994). ‘Citizenship behavior and social exchange’, Academy of
Management Journal, 31, 656-669.
MacKenzie, S. b., Podsakoff, P. M. and Fetter, R. (1991). ‘Organizational citizenship behavior and
objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance’, Organ-
izational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123-1 50.
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). ‘Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 8 1-90.
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). ‘Adding liebe and arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-
being’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227-232.
Mischel, W. (1977). ‘The interaction of person and situation’. In: Magnusson, D. and Endler, N. S. (Eds)
Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactions( Psychology, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New
Jersey.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). ‘Relationship between organization justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
845855.
Newton, T. and Keenan-Further, T. (1991). ‘Further analyses of the dispositional argument in
organizational behavior’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 78 1-787.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books,
Lexington, Ma.
Organ, D. W. (1990). ‘The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In: Staw, B. M.
and Cummings, L. L. (Eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 43-72.
Organ, D. W. (1994) ‘Personality and organizational citizenship behavior’, Journal of Management, 20,
46-78.
Organ, D. W. and Konovsky, M. (1989). ‘Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-1 64.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. (1990). ‘Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects of followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors’, Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Scarpello, V. (1987). ‘Pay satisfaction and pay fairness: Are they the same?’ Paper presented at the meetings
of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
 ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 265

Schneider, B. (1987). ‘The people make the place’, Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
Schneider, B. (1990). ‘Interactional psychology and organizational behavior’. In: Staw, B. M. and
Cummings, L. L. (Eds) Personality and Organizational Influence, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Schneider, B. and Dachler, P. (1978). ‘A note on the stability of the Job Descriptive Index’, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 63, 650-653.
Schneider, R. J. and Hough, L. M. (1995). ‘Personality and industrial/organizational psychology’. In:
Cooper, C. L. and Robertson, I. T. (Eds) International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology, Wiley, Chichester, England, in press.
Smith, P. C., Balzer, W., Brannick, M., Chia, W., EggLeston, S., Gibson, W., Johnson, B., Josephson, H.,
Paul, K., Reilley, C. and Whalen, M. (1987). ‘The revised JDI: A facelift for an old friend’, The Industrial
Organizational Psychologist, 24, 31-33.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M. and Hulin, C. L. (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and
Retirement, Rand McNally, Chicago.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. and Near, J. P. (1983). ‘Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E. and Clausen, J. A. (1986). ‘The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime
longitudinal test’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 5677.
Staw, B. M. and Ross, J. (1985). ‘Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job
attitudes’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469430.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N. and Rothstein, M. (1991). ‘Personality measures as predictors of job
performance: A Meta-analytic review’, Personnel Psychology, 44,703-742.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). ‘Using procedures to justify outcomes: Managing conflict and allocating resources in
work organizations’. Unpublished manuscript.
Watson, D. and Clark, L. A. (1991). ‘Extroversion and its positive emotional core’. In: Briggs, S. R., Jones,
W. H. and Hogan, R. (Eds) Handbook of Personality Psychology, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Weiss, H. M. and Adler, S. (1990). ‘Personality and organizational behavior’. In: Staw, B. M. and
Cummings, L. L. (Eds) Personality and Organizational Influence. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1-50.
266 M. A. KONOVSKY AND D. W. ORGAN

Appendix A
Factor Analysis Results for the Citizenship Behavior Items*
Sports- Generalized Civic
Altruism Courtesy manship Compliance Virtue
Help others who have heavy work loads 0.77 0.29 0.19 0.20 0.17
Helps others who have been absent 0.72 0.32 0.19 0.20 0.23
Looks for other work to do when finished with 0.68 0.19 0.18 0.39 0.13
assigned work
Always does more than heishe is required to do 0.67 0.21 0.18 0.39 0.15
Helps make other workers productive 0.67 0.29 0.21 0.16 0.30
Helps orient new people even though it is 0.61 0.21 0.11 0.17 0.31
not required
Shares personal property with others if necessary 0.51 0.33 0.16 0.17 0.29
to help them with their work
Tries to make the best of the situation, even 0.48 0.46 0.35 0.18 0.13
when there are problems
Does not complain about work assignments 0.45 0.41 0.44 0.20 0.06
Is able to tolerate occasional inconvenience 0.43 0.41 0.32 0.19 0.14
when they arise
Demonstrates concern about the image 0.41 0.40 0.27 0.22 0.36
of the company
Respects the rights and privileges of others 0.32 0.71 0.25 0.21 0.19
Tries to avoid creating problems for others 0.37 0.68 0.32 0.23 0.11
Considers the effects of hislher actions on coworkers 0.40 0.65 0.27 0.25 0.16
Consults with me or other 'people who might
be affected by his/her actions or decisions 0.25 0.64 0.21 0.32 0.26
Informs me before taking any important actions 0.24 0.62 0.20 0.31 0.26
Never abuses his/her rights and privileges 0.26 0.56 0.23 0.51 0.13
Always follows the rules of the company 0.25 0.52 0.24 0.51 0.21
and the department.
Always treats company property with care 0.26 0.48 0.17 0.43 0.2 1
Complains a lot about trivial matters -0.13 -0.21 -0.82 -0.09 -0.02
Always finds fault with what the -0.12 -0.15 --
0.78 -0.14 -0.06
organization is doing
Expresses resentment with any changes -0.15 -0.16 -0.77 -0.10 -0.12
introduced by management
Thinks only about hisiher work problems, - 0.25 -0.19 -
-0.61 -0.10 -0.06
not others
Pays no attention to announcements, messages, -0.10 -0.11 --
0.56 - 0.07 -0.32
or printed material that provide information
about the company
Is always on time 0.17 0.1 1 0.08 0.73 0.07
Attendance at work is above average Y
0.18 0.16 0.12 0.71 0.14
Gives advance notice when unable to come to work 0.14 0.29 0.11 -
0.66 0.13
Maintains a clean workplace 0.30 0.23 0.09 -
0.49 0.13
Always completes his/her work on time 0.44 0.23 0.11 0.48 0.13
Stays informed about developments in the company 0.32 0.23 0.12 0.23 0.70
Attends and participates in meetings 0.26 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.69
regarding the company
Offers suggestions for ways to improve operations 0.47 0.22 0.13 0.16 0.56
* Bold and underlined items indicate the items used to represent each factor in the OCB measure. The remaining items
were eliminated because their factor loading on the relevant factor was ~ 0 . 3 or
5 because they double-loaded or because
they loaded on the wrong factor.