Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Good Soldier or Good Actor? Supervisor Accuracy in Distinguishing Between Selfless and Self-Serving OCB Motives

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

In line with findings that organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) may be driven by selfless and self-serving motives, we sought to determine supervisor effectiveness in distinguishing good soldiers from good actors.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Employing a sample of 197 supervisor-subordinate dyads, we collected self- and supervisor-reports of employees’ citizenship motives. Dominance analysis was used to determine supervisory accuracy in identifying and distinguishing among subordinates’ motives.

Findings

We found that the relationships between self- and supervisor-reports of corresponding motives were strongest, supporting our hypotheses that supervisors are able to accurately identify their subordinates’ OCB motives and that they are not fooled by good actors.

Implications

Our results address concerns raised in previous research that inaccuracy in supervisor attributions of motives might lead to unfair reward or punishment of their subordinates. In demonstrating their accuracy in identifying their subordinates’ motives, an important implication of our work is that supervisors’ preferences for selfless motives may relate to actual differences in their employees’ contribution to the organization.

Originality/Value

Our study contributes to existing research to more conclusively address the question of supervisors’ bias in their preference for selfless motives. Our results also underscore the importance of accounting for employee motives in research exploring the outcomes of OCBs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2014). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual of Organizational Psychology, 1, 569–595.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Atinc, G., Simmering, M. J., & Kroll, M. J. (2012). Control variable use in reporting in macro and micro management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, A. H., & O’Hair, D. (2007). Machiavellians’ motives in organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 246–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kizlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?The. Academy of Management Review, 24, 82–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 542–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 281–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: A social network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 70–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, M. & Halbesleben, J. (2008, April).Direct and indirect attribution effects of LMX relationships: Self, leader, and coworker attributions of OCB motives. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.

  • Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budescu, D. V., & Azen, R. (2004). Beyond global measures of relative importance: some insights from dominance analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butt, A. N., & Choi, J. N. (2006). The effects of cognitive appraisal and emotion on social motive and negotiation behavior: The critical role of agency of negotiator emotion. Human Performance, 19, 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butt, A. N., Choi, J. N., & Jaeger, A. (2005). The effects of self-emotion, counterpart emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: A comparison of individual-level and dyad-level dynamics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 681–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 413–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. (2014). A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 547–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1379–1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, M. A. (2006). Dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior: Motives, motive fulfillment, and role identity. Social Behavior and Personality, 34, 603–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, M. A., & Penner, L. A. (2004). Predicting organizational citizenship behavior: Integrating the functional and role identity approaches. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M. (2013). Give and take. New York: Penguin Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Meyer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900–912.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halbesleben, J., Bowler, M., Bolino, M., & Turnley, W. (2010). Organizational concern, prosocial values or impression management? How supervisors attribute motives to organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1450–1489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 822–828.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Liking and attributions of motives as mediators of the relationships between individuals’ reputations, helpful behaviors, and raters’ reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 808–815.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuncel, N. R., & Tellegen, A. (2009). A conceptual and empirical reexamination of the measurement of the social desirability of items: Implications for detecting desirable response style and scale development. Personnel Psychology, 62, 201–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1200–1211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raja, U., Johns, G., & Bilgrami, S. (2011). Negative consequences of felt violations: The deeper the relationship, the stronger the reaction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2009). The popularity contest at work: Who wins, why, and what do they receive? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 22–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell, R. S., & Wong, Y. L. (2007). Differentiating the good soldiers from the good actors. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 883–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier Avenue East, DMS 5150, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

    Magda B. L. Donia

  2. Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, MB 14.369, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada

    Gary Johns

  3. Brock University, 500 Glenridge Ave., Taro Hall 419, St. Catherines, ON, L2S3A1, Canada

    Usman Raja

Authors
  1. Magda B. L. Donia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary Johns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Usman Raja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magda B. L. Donia.

Appendix

Appendix

Stem of the Citizenship Motives Scale

Original Stem

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

  • Helping coworkers with a heavy workload

  • Not taking long lunches or breaks

  • Touching base with others before initiating action

  • Keeping informed of changes in the organization

  • Attending functions that are not mandatory

  • Not complaining over small things

People are motivated to engage in these kinds of behaviors by many different things. Below is a list of motives that may influence people to engage in these behaviors. For each motive listed, please indicate HOW IMPORTANT that motive is for YOU to engage in these kinds of behaviors at work. Please see the scale below and darken in the number corresponding to your response.

Revised Stem Employee Self-report

During the course of a workday, people may engage in behaviors not directly related to one’s work (as in the examples below) [examples below adapted from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scale]

  • Going out of your way to help a new employee

  • Helping others who have been absent

  • Conserving and protecting organizational property

  • Adhering to informal rules devised to maintain order

Each behavior may be motivated by a different reason. Keeping this in mind, please indicate how important each motive listed below is for YOU when engaging in these types of behaviors MOST OF THE TIME.

Revised Stem Supervisor-Report

During the course of a workday, people may engage in behaviors not directly related to one’s work (as in the examples below) [examples below adapted from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scale]

  • Going out of your way to help a new employee

  • Helping others who have been absent

  • Conserving and protecting organizational property

  • Adhering to informal rules devised to maintain order

Each behavior may be motivated by a different reason. Keeping this in mind, please indicate how important each motive listed below is for your subordinate (name inserted) engaging in these types of behaviors MOST OF THE TIME.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Donia, M.B.L., Johns, G. & Raja, U. Good Soldier or Good Actor? Supervisor Accuracy in Distinguishing Between Selfless and Self-Serving OCB Motives. J Bus Psychol 31, 23–32 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9397-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9397-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation