Steven W. Whiting

Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.

Although one of the main reasons for the interest in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) is the potential consequences of these behaviors, no study has been reported that summarizes the research regarding the relationships between OCBs and their outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide a meta-analytic examination of the relationships between OCBs and a variety of individual- and organizational-level outcomes. Results, based on 168 independent samples (N = 51,235 individuals), indicated that OCBs are related to a number of individual-level outcomes, including managerial ratings of employee performance, reward allocation decisions, and a variety of withdrawal-related criteria (e.g., employee turnover intentions, actual turnover, and absenteeism). In addition, OCBs were found to be related (k = 38; N = 3,611 units) to a number of organizational-level outcomes (e.g., productivity, efficiency, reduced costs, customer satisfaction, and unit-level turnover). Of interest, somewhat stronger relationships were observed between OCBs and unit-level performance measures in longitudinal studies than in cross-sectional studies, providing some evidence that OCBs are causally related to these criteria. The implications of these findings for both researchers and practitioners are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings.

Despite the fact that several studies have investigated the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and performance appraisal ratings, the vast majority of these studies have been cross-sectional, correlational investigations conducted in organizational settings that do not allow researchers to establish the causal nature of this relationship. To address this lack of knowledge regarding causality, the authors conducted 2 studies designed to investigate the effects of task performance, helping behavior, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal evaluations. Findings demonstrated that each of these forms of behavior has significant effects on performance evaluation decisions and suggest that additional attention should be directed at both voice and organizational loyalty as important forms of citizenship behavior aimed at the organization.

Surveying for "artifacts": the susceptibility of the OCB-performance evaluation relationship to common rater, item, and measurement context effects.

Despite the increased attention paid to biases attributable to common method variance (CMV) over the past 50 years, researchers have only recently begun to systematically examine the effect of specific sources of CMV in previously published empirical studies. Our study contributes to this research by examining the extent to which common rater, item, and measurement context characteristics bias the relationships between organizational citizenship behaviors and performance evaluations using a mixed-effects analytic technique. Results from 173 correlations reported in 81 empirical studies (N = 31,146) indicate that even after controlling for study-level factors, common rater and anchor point number similarity substantially biased the focal correlations. Indeed, these sources of CMV (a) led to estimates that were between 60% and 96% larger when comparing measures obtained from a common rater, versus different raters; (b) led to 39% larger estimates when a common source rated the scales using the same number, versus a different number, of anchor points; and (c) when taken together with other study-level predictors, accounted for over half of the between-study variance in the focal correlations. We discuss the implications for researchers and practitioners and provide recommendations for future research.

Selecting team players: Considering the impact of contextual performance and workplace deviance on selection decisions in the National Football League.

Contextual performance and workplace deviance likely influence team functioning and effectiveness and should therefore be considered when evaluating job candidates for team-based roles. However, obtaining this information is difficult given a lack of reliable sources and the desire of job applicants to present themselves in a favorable light. Thus, it is unknown whether those selecting employees for teams incorporate prior contextual performance and workplace deviance into their evaluations, or whether doing so improves the quality of selection decisions. To address these issues, we examined the impact of prior task performance, contextual performance, and workplace deviance on National Football League (NFL) decision maker (organizational insider) and external expert (organizational outsider) evaluations of college football players in the NFL draft, using a content analysis methodology to generate measures of contextual performance and workplace deviance. Our findings indicate that insiders value contextual performance more than outsiders, which is likely because of differing interests and goals that lead to different levels of motivation and/or ability to acquire information about prior contextual performance. We also propose that prior task performance, contextual performance, and workplace deviance will predict player performance in the NFL. Our results support this prediction for task and contextual performance. In addition, we investigated the quality of insider and outsider judgments using Brunswiks (1952) lens model. Implications of our findings for the team selection, contextual performance, and workplace deviance literatures are discussed.

Evaluating Inrole and Extrarole Behaviors Across Sectors

In this study, we explore whether sector distinguishes what we know about performance appraisals. We were particularly interested in two important aspects of the appraisal process: evaluation of inrole/task and extrarole/citizenship behaviors. We utilized a mixed experimental design with three within-subjects factors (task behavior and two types of extrarole behavior), each manipulated at two levels (high and low performance), and a between-subjects factor measuring sector of the respondent (private and public/nonprofit). We find that sector does matter in a common managerial task like performance appraisals. Public sector managers placed greater weight on task behaviors in making their appraisals than did private sector managers. Results regarding sector and extrarole behaviors were mixed. Implications and future research directions are discussed.