Good Soldier or Good Actor? Supervisor Accuracy in Distinguishing Between Selfless and Self-Serving OCB Motives
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsOrganizational citizenship behaviors Citizenship motives Selfless motives Self-serving motives
- 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
- 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- Grant, A. M. (2013). Give and take. New York: Penguin Group.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