USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Organizational citizenship behavior

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Organizational citizenship behavior a career development strategy
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Sutton, Martha J
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Careers ocb motivation plateau commitment
OCB
Motivation
Plateau
Strategy
Commitment
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: The goals of the present study were to 1.) develop a model of career related factors that could be related to organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB); and 2.) determine if the proposed relationships between the career focused variables and OCB differed across rating source. A total of 262 volunteers from a Corporation and University completed a survey in either online or by paper and pencil that included demographics and measures of: job involvement, career motivation, occupational commitment, perceptions of career plateau, career stage, and OCB. Ratings of OCB were obtained from approximately 195 participant supervisors and/or coworkers.Correlational and multiple regression analyses showed that, as hypothesized, career motivation and job content plateau were related to self-ratings of OCB, explaining unique variance beyond that accounted for by the organization and select demographics.Coworker ratings of OCB were explained only by the organization, levels of education and, gender. A series of regression analyses showed that the majority of the relationships between the career variables and ratings of OCB were not moderated by perceptions of career plateau or career stage. The relationship between job involvement and coworker ratings of OCB, however, was moderated by the participants career stage. Participants in the primary career stages received higher ratings than those in the boundary stages on all three forms of OCB. Simple slope analyses showed that, in general, those in the primary and boundary stages who were more job involved received higher ratings of OCB. Coworkers may have attributed extra-role behaviors to participants job involvement, the most visible career factor. Finally, the relationship between career identity and participant ratings of OCBO was stronger than between identity and coworker ratings of OCBO.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Martha J. Sutton.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 161 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001680996
oclc - 62500804
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001133
usfldc handle - e14.1133
System ID:
SFS0025454:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Organizational Citizenship Behavior : A Career Development Strategy by Martha J. Sutton A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D. Walter C. Borman, Ph.D. Cathy L. Mcevoy, Ph.D. Carnot E. Nelson, Ph.D. Toru Shimizu, Ph.D. Date of Approval: January 14, 2005 Keywords: ocb, career, strategy, motivation, plateau Copyright 2005, Martha J. Sutton

PAGE 2

i Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... .......1 Organizational Citizenship Behavior ..................................................................................1 The Rewards for Good Citizenship ........................................................................3 Antecedents of OCB ..............................................................................................4 Job Attitudes .............................................................................................4 Personality ................................................................................................5 Motives .....................................................................................................6 Career Management ............................................................................................................7 Career Management and OCB ...............................................................................8 Model of OCB as Career Management Strategy ...................................................9 Job Involvement ......................................................................................10 Career Motivation ...................................................................................12 Career/Occupational Commitment .........................................................14 Occupational Commitment and OCB .....................................................16 Conceptual Distinction ...........................................................................18 Career Focus and OCB Moderators ..................................................................................19 Career Stage .........................................................................................................19 Exploration .............................................................................................20 Establishment ..........................................................................................20 Maintenance ............................................................................................20 Disengagement .......................................................................................21 Career Stage and OCB .........................................................................................21 Exploration .............................................................................................22 Establishment ..........................................................................................23 Maintenance ............................................................................................24 Disengagement .......................................................................................25 Perceptions of Career Plateau ..............................................................................26

PAGE 3

ii Career Plateaus and OCB ....................................................................................28 Rating Source (Target) .........................................................................................30 Summary ..............................................................................................................32 Method ............................................................................................................................... ............33 Participants ........................................................................................................................33 Response Rate ......................................................................................................33 The Corporation ......................................................................................33 The University ........................................................................................34 Overall Response Rate ............................................................................35 Demographic Information of Respondents ..........................................................35 Participant Data ......................................................................................35 Coworker/Supervisor Data .....................................................................35 Materials ...........................................................................................................................38 Measures ..............................................................................................................38 Biographical Data ...................................................................................38 Job Involvement ......................................................................................39 Occupational Commitment .....................................................................39 Career Motivation ...................................................................................39 Procedure ..........................................................................................................................44 The Corporation ...................................................................................................45 The University .....................................................................................................46 Analyses ............................................................................................................................47 Preliminary Analyses ...........................................................................................47 Scale Construction ..................................................................................47 Career Stage ............................................................................................47 Coworker Ratings ...................................................................................47 Hypotheses Testing ..............................................................................................47 Results ............................................................................................................................... .............49 Preliminary Analyses ........................................................................................................49 Hypotheses Testing ...........................................................................................................54 Hypotheses Testing ...........................................................................................................54 Zero Order Correlations .......................................................................................54

PAGE 4

iii Regression Analyses ............................................................................................55 OCBI-DIRECT. ......................................................................................55 OCBI-INDIRECT. ..................................................................................56 OCBO .....................................................................................................58 Moderator Analyses .............................................................................................59 Job Involvement. .....................................................................................59 Occupational Commitment. ....................................................................64 Career Resilience ....................................................................................66 Career Insight ..........................................................................................68 Career Identity ........................................................................................70 Job Involvment .......................................................................................72 Occupational Commitment .....................................................................76 Career Resilience ....................................................................................80 Career Insight ..........................................................................................84 Career Identity ........................................................................................88 Post Hoc Analyses ............................................................................................................91 Demographics and Tenure ...................................................................................93 OCBI-DIRECT .......................................................................................93 OCBI-INDIRECT ...................................................................................95 OCBO .....................................................................................................97 Research Question ............................................................................................................98 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... .....100 Hypotheses Testing .........................................................................................................100 Job Involvement .................................................................................................100 Occupational Commitment ................................................................................101 Career Identity ...................................................................................................103 Career Insight .....................................................................................................104 Career Resilience ...............................................................................................105 Potential Moderators ..........................................................................................106 Hierarchical Plateau ..............................................................................106 Job Content Plateau. .............................................................................107 Career Stage ..........................................................................................108

PAGE 5

iv Rating Source Differences Research Question ............................................................111 Post Hoc Analyses ..........................................................................................................113 Summary .........................................................................................................................114 Theoretical and Practical Implications ............................................................................115 Study Limitations and Future Research ..........................................................................115 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................118 References ............................................................................................................................... .....119 Appendices ............................................................................................................................... ....130 Appendix A: Data Collection Solicitation Request ........................................................131 Appendix B: Participant Survey .....................................................................................133 Appendix C: Supervisor Survey .....................................................................................141 Appendix D: Peer Survey ...............................................................................................143 Appendix E: Emails to Corporate Employees Requesting Participation ........................145 Appendix F: Letter to University Employees Requesting Participation.. .......................148 About the Author .End Page

PAGE 6

v List of Tables Table 1. Power Analysis for Required Number of Participants. ................................................34 Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants. ..............................................................37 Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of Coworkers and Supervisors. .....................................38 Table 4. Factor Loadings for Original Career Motivation Subscales. .......................................40 Table 5. Factor Loadings for Final Career Motivation Subscales. ............................................41 Table 6. Factor Loadings of Items in Original OCB Scales. .....................................................43 Table 7. Factor Loadings of Citizenship Items in Final OCB Scales. .......................................44 Table 8. Means, Standard Deviati ons, and MANOVA Results for Participant and Coworker Ratings of OCB. ..........................................................................................49 Table 9. Multitrait-Multirater Matrix for Ratings of OCB. .......................................................50 Table 10. Descriptive Statistics of Survey Variables. ..................................................................51 Table 11. Zero Order Correlations of all Study Variables. ..........................................................52 Table 12. Regression of Participant Rati ngs of OCBI-DIRECT on Organization and the Career Variables. ....................................................................................................55 Table 13. Regression of Coworker Rati ngs of OCBI-DIRECT on Organization and the Career Variables. ....................................................................................................56 Table 14. Regression of Participant Rati ngs of OCBI-INDIRECT on Organization and the Career Variables. ....................................................................................................57 Table 15. Regression of Coworker Ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT on Organization and the Career Variables. ....................................................................................................57 Table 16. Regression of Participant Ra tings of OCBO on Organization and the Career Variables. ..........................................................................................................58 Table 17. Regression of Coworker Ratings of OCBO on Organization and the Career Variables. ..........................................................................................................59 Table 18. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Job Involvement and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ........................................................................60 Table 19. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Job Involvement and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ..............................................................61 Table 20. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Occupational Commitment and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. .................................................................64

PAGE 7

vi Table 21. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Occupational Commitment and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ........................................................65 Table 22. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Career Resilience and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ........................................................................66 Table 23. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Career Resilience and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ..............................................................67 Table 24. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Career Insight and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ........................................................................68 Table 25. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Career Insight and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ..............................................................69 Table 26. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Career Identity and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ........................................................................70 Table 27. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Career Identity and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ..............................................................71 Table 28. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Job Involvement and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. .................................................................72 Table 29. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Job Involvement and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ........................................................73 Table 30. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderato r of Relationship between Job Involvement and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. .................................................................74 Table 31. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderato r of Relationship between Job Involvement and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ........................................................75 Table 32. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Occupational Commitment and SelfReports of Citizenship Behaviors. ..........................................76 Table 33. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Occupational Commitment and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ..................................77 Table 34. Hierarchical Plateau as Modera tor of Relationship between Occupational Commitment and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ...........................................78 Table 35. Hierarchical Plateau as Modera tor of Relationship between Occupational Commitment and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ..................................79 Table 36. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Resilience and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. .................................................................80 Table 37. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Resilience and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ........................................................81 Table 38. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Resilience and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. .................................................................82 Table 39. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Resilience and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ........................................................83

PAGE 8

vii Table 40. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Insight and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. .................................................................84 Table 41. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Insight and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ..............................................................85 Table 42. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Insight and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ........................................................................86 Table 43. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Insight and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ..............................................................87 Table 44. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Identity and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ........................................................................88 Table 45. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Identity and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ..............................................................89 Table 46. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Identity and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ........................................................................90 Table 47. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Identity and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. ..............................................................91 Table 48. Regression of Participant Rati ngs of OCBI-DIRECT on Demographic and Career Variables. ..........................................................................................................93 Table 49. Regression of Coworker Rati ngs of OCBI-DIRECT on Demographic and Career Variables. ..........................................................................................................94 Table 50. Regression of Participant Rati ngs of OCBI-INDIRECT on Demographic and Career Variables. ..........................................................................................................95 Table 51. Regression of Coworker Ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT on Demographic and Career Variables. ..........................................................................................................96 Table 52. Regression of Participant Rati ngs of OCBO on Demographic and Career Variables. .....................................................................................................................97 Table 53. Regression of Coworker Ratings of OCBO on Demographic and Career ariables. ........................................................................................................................98 Table 54. Z-scores from Comparisons between Relationships of Participant and Coworker Ratings of OCB and Career Focused Variables. ..........................................................99

PAGE 9

viii List of Figures Figure 1. Model of proposed relationship between career focus and OCB. ....................................9 Figure 2. Hypothesized relationship between career focus variables, career stage, and OCB. ........................................................................................................................22 Figure 3. Hypothesized relationship between career focus variables, perceived career plateau, and OCB. ................................................................................................29 Figure 4. Moderated regression of career stage and job involvement on coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT. ..............................................................................................................62 Figure 5. Moderated regression of career stage and job involvement on coworker ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT. ..........................................................................................................62 Figure 6. Moderated regression of career stage and job involvement on coworker ratings of OCBO. ............................................................................................................................63

PAGE 10

ix Organizational Citizenship Behavior : A Career Development Strategy Martha J. Sutton ABSTRACT The goals of the present study were to 1.) de velop a model of career related factors that could be related to organizationa l citizenship behaviors (OCB); and 2.) determine if the proposed relationships between the career focused variables and OCB differed across rating source. A total of 262 volunteers from a Corporation and University completed a survey in either online or by paper and pencil that included demographics and measures of: job involvement, career motivation, occupational commitment, perceptions of career plateau, career stage, and OCB. Ratings of OCB were obtained from approximately 195 participant supervisors and/or coworkers. Correlational and multiple regression analy ses showed that, as hypothesized, career motivation and job content plateau were relate d to self-ratings of OCB, explaining unique variance beyond that accounted for by the organization and select demographics. Coworker ratings of OCB were explained only by the organiza tion, levels of education and, gender. A series of regression analyses showed that the majority of the relationships between the career variables and ratings of OCB were not m oderated by perceptions of career plateau or career stage. The relationship between job involvement and coworker ratings of OCB, however, was moderated by the participants career stage. Participants in the primary career stages received higher ratings than those in the boundary stages on all three forms of OCB. Simple slope analyses showed that, in general, those in the primary and boundary stages who were more job involved received higher ratings of OCB. Coworkers may have attributed extra-role behaviors to participants job involvement, the most visible career factor. Finally, the relationship between career identity and participant ratings of OCBO was stronger than between identity and coworker ratings of OCBO. These findings provide practical and theoretical implications. Practically, the results suggest that organizations may influence the performance of OCB by recognizing and working with those who are career motivated and by ensuring that all employees are challenged by their jobs. Theoretically, this research provides evidence that OCB may be an alternative and viable career strategy employed by career motivated employees.

PAGE 11

1 Introduction The purpose of this study was two-fold. Th e first was to propose a model of careerrelated factors that could influence the perfo rmance of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). The second was to determine whether the relationship between the career-focused variables and OCB differs across the OCB rating source. Organizational citizenship behaviors are volun tary behaviors that can positively influence organizational functioning (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Although an employee may not directly benefit from performing discrete citizenship behavi ors, evidence suggests that in the aggregate, OCB can influence performance evaluations and organizational reward recommendations. OCB has been most frequently described as either dispositionally driven or as reactionary behaviors performed as expressions of job attitudes. More recent work shows OCB may also serve a proactive function, that is, to fulfill needs or achieve valued outcomes. Career management is a cyclical process of exploring, setting goals, and implementing strategies to achieve career or occupational objectives. Theorists have suggested and researchers have found, for example, that employees deve lop skills and work opportunities to realize individual career goals. This study proposed that career motivated and committed employees perform voluntary citizenship behaviors as a purposiv e strategy to achieve career objectives. Thus one goal of this study was to develop a model of career-related variables and moderators that motivate the performance of OCB. The proposed model suggests that an individuals career motivation, perception, and stage influence his or her performance of OCB. These career variables and moderators were then evaluated to determine if they are related to s upervisor, peer, and self-ratings of OCB in a field setting. Organizational Citizenship Behavior For over half a century, managers, researcher s, and theoreticians have recognized that organizations require more from their employees than the circumscribed completion of task assignments. Barnard (1938) proposed that the "willingness of persons to contribute efforts to the cooperative system" (p. 83), an attribute that includes an "indefinitely large range of variation in its intensity among individuals" (p. 84) is indispensable for organizational functioning. Decades

PAGE 12

2 later Katz and Kahn (1978) argued that, to surviv e, organizations must engender in their members "innovative and spontaneous behaviorsnot specified by role prescriptions" (p. 403). Bateman and Organ (1983) sugg ested the term "organizational citizenship behavior" (OCB) to describe informal employee contributi ons similar to the cooperative and spontaneous behaviors described by Barnard (1938) and Katz and Kahn (1978). OCB was later defined as behavior that is "discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Other authors have proposed constructs that are conceptually similar to OCB such as prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986) and organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992). Borman and Motowidl o (1993) divided the performance criterion domain into task and contextual behaviors. Task be haviors include those that directly relate to the organizations technical core or those that suppor t the technical core. Employees also contribute to organizational effectiveness, however, through contextual behaviors that "are not directly related to their main task functions but are important because they shape the organizational, social, and psychological context" in which the technical core operates (p. 71). Organ (1997) subsequently confirmed the conceptual overla p between OCB and contextual performance. Research indicates that OCB is not a unidimens ional construct. Factor analyses of one of the original measures of OCB resulted in two categories labeled Altruism and Generalized Compliance. Items that loaded on the Altrui sm dimension included helping behaviors. Generalized Compliance, later termed Conscientio usness, included items that reflect a dedicated adherence to attendance, work time, and or ganizational rules (Organ, 1990). Williams and Anderson (1991) later described the two factors as OCBI behaviors that directly benefit specific individuals, and OCBO behaviors that benef it the organization as a whole. Their evidence suggests the two factors can be distinguished fro m in-role performance and may be differentially related to other variables. Organ (1988) later characterized OCB more broadly to include three other categories of behaviors termed Courtesy, Sportsmanship, and Civic Virtue. Contextual performance was similarly described to comprise five types of behavior (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Some researchers have replicated OCB's five-factor st ructure, others have reported problems with multicollinearity among the factors (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994) suggested, that, although the actions comprising OCB are conceptually discrete,

PAGE 13

3 "managers have difficulty making these fine distin ctions and tend to lump them together" (p. 353). The Rewards for Good Citizenship Organ (1988) originally proposed that individuals would not be formally recompensed for performing citizenship behaviors. A substantia l body of research has confirmed, however, that good citizens often receive organizational reward s. Employing both process-tracing and policycapturing methodologies, for example, researchers have shown that experienced supervisors search for and use both in-role performance and OCB when evaluating a nd providing dollar-value estimates for performance (Orr, Sackett, & Mercer, 1989; Werner, 1994). MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter (1991, 1993) rendered further support for the influence of OCB on performance evaluations. Their goal was to determine the extent to which sales managers' evaluations of their personnels performance were influenced by objective sales measures and by OCB. The authors compiled fi eld data from samples of insurance agents, industrial sales representatives, and district sales ma nagers. Results showed that a combination of OCB and actual sales data accounted for more va riance in the performance evaluations than objective sales data alone, with OCB accountin g for the dominant percentage (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991, 1993). In addition to influencing their performance evaluations, employees who are good citizens may receive other positive career outcomes. Researchers have shown that the performance of OCB can also result in reco mmendations for promotions and salary increases (Allen & Rush, 1998; Eastman, 1994; Morrison, 1994; Hui, Lam, & Law, 2000; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Orr et al., 1989; Park & Sims, cited in Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993). Kiker and Motowidlo (1999), for example, examined the influence of task and contextual performance on reward recommendations. Participan ts viewed a series of videotapes over a twoweek period that showed a hypothetical employee performing four levels of realistic task and contextual behaviors. Based on this information, they decided how substantial a pay increase to award the employee, whether to promote the em ployee, and whether to recommend the employee for a fast-track development program. Summing the three judgments, the authors found that high levels of both task and contextual performance were rewarded. Results also showed an interaction such that reward recommendations for contextual performance were higher as the levels of task performance increased. Similarly, high levels of task performance are more richly rewarded as the levels of contextual performance increased.

PAGE 14

4 The extant evidence suggests that employees may derive a number of positive career outcomes from the performance of OCB. Another stream of organizational research has investigated the antecedents of citizenship beha viors. Much of this theory and research has focused on two categories of predictors, job a ttitudes and personality. The next section reviews these traditional OCB predictors. Antecedents of OCB Theoreticians have historically argued that three motivational mechanisms drive citizenship behaviors: job attitudes, personality, and organizational variables (Borman & Penner, 2001; Schnake, 1991; Van Dyne, Cummings, & Park s, 1995). The underlying assumptions have been that OCB is either dispositionally driven or performed as a reaction to the job or organization (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1990). The bulk of the empirical work to date has focused on identifying antecedent job attitudes and personality variables. Job Attitudes OCB was originally conceived as reactionary behavior performed or withheld in response to various attitudes such as job satisfaction or organizational commitment. Organ (1977) first suggested that satisfaction with the job and the organization could result in positive feelings on the part of employees. Because resource or procedural constraints often limit task performance, an employee may reciprocate for those positive feelings by performing OCB. Subsequent research has shown that job satis faction accounts for unique variance in OCB (Batemen & Organ, 1983; Organ & Konovsky, 1989). Organizational commitment is another attit ude proposed as a causal agent for OCB (Organ, 1990). Employees who identify psychological ly with their organization and desire to maintain their organizational membership may be willing to exert effort beyond their normal task requirements to support the organization and stre ngthen their ties to it. Organ and Ryan's (1995) meta-analysis showed that affective or overall organizational commitment was also comparably related to OCB. Changes in work life and employee attitudes, however, may be altering the nature of the relationship between the organization and the employee. The rash of corporate mergers, reorganizations, and restructurings that have occurred over the last two decades have led to employment uncertainty and attitudinal changes among individuals who may have once believed they were hired for life. These changes in the employment contract model may result in employees who feel less committed to their organiza tions and more committed to their individual careers. Boyatzis and Kram (1999) argued that individuals now adopt a more self-serving

PAGE 15

5 posture and are more inclined to resolve career and life issues in light of personal concerns, with less concern about the consequences to the organization, (p. 2). In concert with the deterioration of the career-long psychological contract (Boyatzis & Kram, 1999, p. 3), the growth in global competition means that employees are now required to work longer hours to accomplish their formal task requirements. To the extent that citizenship performance is truly voluntary, it requires a greater level of effort on an individuals part to go beyond that which is required on a daily basi s (Horgen, personal communication, 2000). Organizational commitment has historically dr iven OCB. An alternative and perhaps more contemporary explanation, given the recent cha nges in the psychological contract, is that citizenship performance derives from a commitmen t to self. That is, employees may also be motivated to engage in citizenship performance when they perceive that it can be instrumental in helping them achieve personal goals (Hui et al., 2000; Hui, Law, & Chen, 1999) Personality In addition to job attitudes, another stream of research has focused on personality as a driving force behind citizenship behaviors. Conscientiousness, prosocial personality, and ambition have emer ged as antecedents from this research perspective. In 1995, Organ and Ryan performed a meta analysis of th e attitudinal and dispositional predictors of OCB. Their results showed that conscientiousness was a reliable predictor of both the altruism and compliance dimensions. Penner and his colleagues (Penner & Finkels tein, 1998; Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, & Freifeld, 1995) developed a scale to measure the prosocial personality orientation, a person who experiences empathy and feels concern for others or who undertakes planful, voluntary behaviors over an extended period of time. Initially validated on samples of volunteers, the two factors of the measure, Other-Oriented Empathy and Helpfulne ss, have subsequently been shown to predict both self and peer reports of OCB and other good citizen behaviors (Midili, 1996; Midili & Penner, 1995, Rioux & Penner, 2001; Tillman, 1998). Reviewing the evidence at that time, Organ (1990) theorized that the link between personality and OCB was moderated by job attitudes. He suggested, for example, that a conscientious employee would perform OCB unless or until the person perceived some relative level of injustice within the organizational setti ng. Job dissatisfaction or procedural injustice, another correlate of OCB, could therefore a ttenuate levels of citiz enship behaviors. Support for this person by situation interaction comes from research conducted by Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo, and Borman (199 8) who, in the process, identified a third personality predictor of OCB. Hogan and her coll eagues hypothesized that organizational reward

PAGE 16

6 characteristics would influence the type of pe rson performing contextual behaviors. In two separate studies conducted in different organiza tional settings, successful employees completed the Hogan Personality Inventory and their supervis ors evaluated their performance on two factors of contextual behaviors, work dedication a nd interpersonal facilita tion. Regression analyses showed that, in organizations with little or no advancement opportunities, prudence (i.e., conscientiousness) correlated with and predicted contextual performance. The authors speculated that employees would be motivated in these cooperative settings to perform OCB to win acceptance and approval or to "get along." They contrasted these results with data obtained from three samples in organizations offering exte nsive advancement opportunities. In these more competitive environments, only ambition predicted c ontextual behaviors. It was suggested that ambitious employees would be motivated to perform OCB to gain promotional opportunities or to "get ahead." Although researchers and theoreticians have emphasized personality, job attitudes, and more recently, leader behaviors as primary causes of OCB, these traditional predictors have not explained a great deal of variance in OCB me asurement (George & Jones, 1997). Other authors have suggested that OCB may serve a proactive f unction. That is, individuals may be motivated to perform OCB to attain specific goals or achie ve desired outcomes (Bolino, 1999; Folger, 1993; Greenberg, 1993). Results obtained by Hogan et al., (1998) support these contentions. Motives Challenged to examine the proactive basis for OCB (Greenberg, 1993), Rioux and Penner, (2001) developed a scale to measure c itizenship motives. Three factors emerged from the scale: prosocial values, organizational co mmitment, and impression management. Prosocial values and organizational commitment were positiv ely related to and explained unique variance in supervisor, peer, and self-ratings of OCB over and above that explained by job attitudes and personality. Riouxs results have since been re plicated on self-ratings of OCB (Tilman, 1998). Although Rioux and Penner (2001) provided a valuable first step in defining proactive OCB motivations, the characteristics of their participants may have limited their work. Young college undergraduates, the majority of whom wo rked only part time, developed the pool of potential motivational items. As such, the range of possible motivations may be restricted by their relative lack of work and career experience. Bolino (1999) argued that OCB could be motivat ed by a desire to enhance one's image or impression in the work setting. The model he presented suggests that employees may perform OCB when they value being perceived as a good citizen, when they believe OCB will promote that image, and when they perceive a discrepancy between their current and desired image. This

PAGE 17

7 implies that employees may perform citizenship behaviors on a temporary or sporadic basis to polish a tarnished impression. One OCB motive that has not b een examined to date is career enhancement. That is, career-focused employees could use OCB as a proactive strategy to achieve valued work or career outcomes. In this case the behaviors would not be short-term activities performed directly prior to performance evaluations or promotional decisions (Hui et al., 2000), but rather a long-term, systematic commitment to go above and beyond prescribed job requirements. Although other researchers have looked at the instrumental value of OCB to gain promotions (Hui et al., 2000), no one has presented a model of OCB as a career development strategy. This work was undertaken to address this gap in the literature. It could be useful to identify OCB as a career development strategy for both the indivi dual and the organization. Employees who are beleaguered by recent threats of layoffs would learn the potential career value of citizenship behaviors. Organizations that are struggling to maintain commitment and productivity from an increasingly contingent workforce could encour age OCB as a mechanism to gain individual career objectives. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) touched on this motivation when they argued that citizenship behavior in creases "when employees are not indifferent to the rewards made available by the organization, when employees perceive that their leaders control those rewards, and when their leaders administer rewards contingent on performance" (p. 533). The next section discusses the career management process and links it to OCB. Career Management Hall (1971) proposed that a career is that particular sequence of experiences and personal changes, both unique and common, which a person goes through during the entire course of his lifes work. (p. 50) Recently, Greenhaus and Callanan (1994) defined career as: the pattern of work-related experiences that span the course of a persons life. (p. 5) The presumption in both definitions is that a career is unique to, and owned by, each individual, rather than owned by an organization (Greenhaus & Ca llanan, 1994; Hall, 1976). An organizationally owned career is presumed to be externally motivated and directed (Boyatzis & Kram, 1999). Assuming an individual ownership perspective, a career becomes the individuals responsibility and their actions influence or control their car eer experiences, within the constraints of the environment. One way in which individuals influence thei r careers is through career choice behaviors. Hall (1971) distinguished the broader term of "career choice any piece of behavior which will affect the persons career outcomes from "occupational choice the choice of a career role" (p.

PAGE 18

8 60). Individuals typically make only a few occupational choices in their lives; career choice behaviors, by contrast, can occur continually. Career choice behaviors can be passive or not consciously planned to influence a career, or ac tive, that is, intentionally performed to gain valued objectives. The process by which individuals develop a nd implement career strategies to achieve desired goals may be termed career planning (Hall et al., 1986; Mihal, Sorce, & Comte, 1984) or career management (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994). Career management is a cyclical process that individuals undertake that includes career c hoice behaviors such as self and environmental exploration, self-awareness, goa l setting, strategy development and implementation, feedback, and career appraisal. Career Management and OCB The selection and implementation of career strategies is a career management step particularly relevant to this dissertation. It was suggested that individuals consciously choose and perform citizenship behaviors to help manage their careers and achieve goals. Greenhaus and Callanan (1994) outlined a number of career deve lopment strategies. To facilitate career goal achievement, for example, employees may: exhibit job competence, extend their involvement in work, acquire work-related skills, develop career opportunities, and develop supportive relationships. A detailed examination of these strate gies reveals that they include task behaviors, OCB, and other actions. An individual's first career goal strategy s hould be to develop and maintain competence in his or her present job. Career success, ther efore, begins with skilled task or in-role performance. Accomplishing assigned tasks effectively, however, is generally considered to be "a necessary but insufficient condition for attaining most career goals." (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994, p. 74) The implied presumption is that an individual must go above and beyond the specified requirements of their task to achieve va lued career outcomes. That is, they must perform some form of voluntary or extrarole behaviors, or OCB. Evidence supports the link between task and citizenship behaviors for career development. The Kiker and Motowidlo (1999) research discussed previously showed that citizenship performance did not appreciably in fluence reward recommendations when task performance was low. Results suggested, rather, that individuals who perform effectively in both task and citizenship performance will receive highe r career rewards that those who excel in only one.

PAGE 19

A number of the behaviors measured in Podsakoff and MacKenzie's (1989) OCB scale reflect the career development actions proposed by Greenhaus and Callanan (1994). Extended work involvement, for example, could include arriving early, refraining from taking extra breaks, and maintaining high levels of attendance. Volunteering to help or preventing problems with others can help to build supportive relationships or alliances within the work group and organization. Based on the congruence between career strategies and OCB, it was reasonable to presume that employees consciously choose to perform citizenship behaviors to achieve valued career outcomes. Bolino (1999) suggested that people are more likely to perform OCB when they believe that individuals who influence desired outcomes will notice the OCB and view the behaviors favorably. Model of OCB as Career Management Strategy Job Involvement Career Motivation OCB Occupational Commitment Moderators: Career Stage Perceived Career Plateau Rater Figure 1. Model of proposed relationship between career focus and OCB. 9

PAGE 20

10 The career management model developed for this dissertation (see Figure 1) suggests that career focused employees perform OCB as a career strategy. Career focused individuals are proposed to have high levels of three career-relate d factors: job involvement, career motivation, and occupational commitment. The model further suggests that the relationship between these career-related variables and OCB is moderated by career stage and perceived career plateau. The next section outlines the theoretical and empirical links between these career-focused variables and organizational citizenship behavior. Job Involvement Individuals who are career focused are likely to be highly involved in their jobs. Job involvement was originally defined as the "internalization of values about the goodness of work" (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965, p. 24). More recent work in this area suggests that job involvement is best defined as the degree to wh ich a person's job plays a pivotal role in his or her psychological identity (Blau, 1985; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977). Job involvement, a relatively stable ps ychological state that evolves from the socialization of work values (Lodahl & Kejn er, 1965), is related to important individual, situational, and outcome variables. Job involved individuals, for example, are older, have an internal locus of control, believe in the Protestant work ethic, have strong growth needs and achievement motivation, and are more satisfied with their jobs and their organizations. Job involvement has also been related to job charact eristics (i.e., variety, autonomy, task identity, feedback), social factors within the organiza tion, the opportunity to participate in decisionmaking, effort, absenteeism, and turnover (Kanungo, 1982a, 1982b; Lobel & St. Clair, 1992; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Mathieu & Zajac 1990; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977; Randall & Cote, 1991; Saal, 1978; Shore, Thornton, & Shore, 1990). Job involvement also predic ts career-related attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes. Individuals who are job involved, for example, re port higher levels of career salience (Randall & Cote, 1991; Sekaran, 1982; Shore et al., 1990) and are more committed to their careers or occupations (Aryee & Tan, 1992; Blau, Paul, & St John, 1993). Noe and Steffy (1987) found that job involved educators were more likely to report having engaged in self-exploration and career planning behaviors. Moreover, work role salien ce (conceptually similar to job involvement) has been shown to predict the likelihood that mana gers had selected a career goal and explored various career options (Sugalski & Greenhaus, 1986). Finally, Rabinowitz and Hall (1977) and Kanungo (1982b) suggested that job involvement would be related to positive career outcomes (e.g., salary and the experience of success). In support of this, researchers have found that

PAGE 21

11 individuals who are more absorbed in their wo rk are also more likely to be recommended for promotions (Noe & Steffy, 1987) and to r eceive merit increases (Lobel & St. Clair, 1992). It was proposed that the more involved individuals are with their job or career the more likely they are to engage in OCB. That is, i ndividuals who psychologically identify with their work are more likely to have set career-related goals and to perform voluntary behaviors to help them achieve those goals. Kanungo (1982a, 1982b) theorized a motivational reformulation of the job involvement construct consistent with this hypothesis. Kanungo argued that the level of job involvement is a workers cognitive belief state of psychological id entification withthat job (p. 80), which is a function of his or her belief that the job has the potential to fulfill salient needs. Those needs may be intrinsic (e.g., autonomy, interesting work) or more extrinsic (e.g., pay, benefits, future promotional opportunities) and will be relatively mo re or less salient for each individual. The key motivating force is not the type of needs but rather the salience of the particular needs for that individual. Job involvement levels would subseque ntly be reflected in job-related attitudes and behaviors such as job satisfaction, effort, and turnove r. To the extent that an individual has salient career related needs and believes that the job has th e potential to fulfill those needs, they are more likely be job involved and to manifest that involvement through OCB. Empirical tests of the hypothesized relationship between involvement and OCB are scarce; however, there is indirect support for the proposal. Many of the items included in Smith, Organ, and Nears (1983) OCB scale describ e behaviors that reflect job involvement conceptualizations. A person who helps others with their work, whose attendance is above the norm, and who makes innovative suggestions, fo r example, is likely to be viewed as psychologically involved in their job. Wien er and Gechman (1977) argued job involvement would be displayed in "socially accepted beha viors that exceed formal and/or normative expectations" (p. 48), behaviors that define OCB. The number of hours worked per week over 40 may be viewed as 'extra-role' behavior, particularly for staff employees. Wiener and Va rdi (1980), operationalizing effort as the number of hours worked beyond those required for the job, found that job involvement made a larger relative contribution to work effort than either calculative or normative organizational commitment. The number of hours an employee worked has also been related to peer reports of OCB (Drenth, 1999). Finally, Somers and Birnba um (1998) found that job commitment, similar to job involvement, was related to voluntary organizational actions such as citizenship or prosocial behaviors.

PAGE 22

12 One other argument supports the hypothesized relationship between job involvement and OCB. The evidence presented suggests that job involvement is related to a variety of individual, job, organizational, and career related attitudes and behaviors. The relationship between job involvement and performance, however, has been inconsistent or nonexistent, despite what would seem to be an intuitive link (Kanungo, 1982b; Ra binowitz & Hall, 1977). In a sample of nearly 300 scientists, for example, Lawler and Hall (1970) found that although job involvement was related to self-reported effort, it did not corre late with performance self-reports. Perhaps the reason there is not a stronger relationship be tween job involvement and performance is because researchers have been measuring the wrong pe rformance. Traditional performance measures are more likely an evaluation of task or in-role be haviors, which are presumed to be predicted by abilities (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) and moderated by training and other organizational constraints (Kanungo, 1982b). Job involvement, or th e belief that the job can fulfill salient needs, may be a better predictor of extra effort or c itizenship performance. Orga n (1988) made a similar argument when he predicted and found a stronge r relationship between job satisfaction and OCB than had historically been found betw een job satisfaction and performance. Career focused individuals are more likely to ha ve salient career goals. To the extent that they perceive their job can help them achieve tho se goals, they are more likely to be involved in their job. It was reasonable to assume that the more involved individuals are in their jobs, the more likely they are to perform voluntary behaviors. Hypothesis 1: Individuals who report high le vels of job involvement will report and receive higher ratings on citizenship perform ance than will individuals who report lower levels of job involvement. Career Motivation London (1983, 1988) originally theorized that career motivation was an individual's internal drive that is influen ced by the environment and exhibited through their organizational and career decisions and behaviors. This internal drive is described by groupings of personality factors, needs, and interests th at vary depending on the occupational context. London categorized these individual characteris tics a priori into three components: career identity, career insight, and career resilience. Care er identity reflects the "degree to which people define themselves by their work and by the orga nization for which they work" (London, 1988, p. 56). Individuals who are high in career identity are likely to be involved in their occupations and organizations and seek career goals that may incl ude recognition, increased salary, promotional opportunities, or leadership roles (King, Ehrhard, & Parks, 1998). Career insight is the degree to

PAGE 23

13 which individuals understand their strengths and weaknesses, their organizational situations, and have clear career goals. The third component of career motivation, car eer resilience, provides the cornerstone for insight; resilience reflects an individual's ability to accommodate a changing work or career environment. Highly resilient employees are selfefficacious, take risks, and understand the organization's political and social environment. In the language of motivation, identity directs behaviors toward the achievement of career goals, insight provides the career energizing force, and resilience reflects career behavioral pe rseverance (London 1983, 1988; Noe, Noe, & Bachhuber, 1990). London ( 1997) suggested resilience de velops from early childhood reinforcement contingencies and fosters insight, both of which then lead to a realistic and meaningful career identity. By contrast, King, Ehrhard, and Parks (1998) proposed career motivation as "a gradual stepwise movement from self-identity to self-insight to resilience" (p. 302). Career motivation levels are reflected in i ndividuals career management behaviors, that is, the career goals they set and the strategi es they choose to achieve those goals. Highly motivated employees, for example, are more likely to set challenging career goals and exert high effort on tasks that are related to those goals (London 1983, 1988, 1993b). There has been limited empirical research on London's motivational model. Noe et al., (1990) developed a behavioral scale presumed to measure London's (1983) three motivational components. Their data showed that work role salience and job characteristics explained unique variance in all three components of career motivation. More recently, London (1993b) developed a scale to measure career motivating attitudes and beliefs. He suggested and found that self-ra tings of career motivation were related to supervisors ratings of support for career development activities and empowerment. It was suggested that the more career motivated employees are the more likely they are to engage in OCB. To the extent that employees are involved in their jobs or occupations (i.e., high identity), understand their ability to achieve th eir career goals within their organizational environment (i.e., high insight), and are resistan t to career disruptions (i.e., high resilience), voluntary citizenship behaviors present a viable st rategy to help them achieve career goals. Theoretical links support the hypothesized relationship between career motivation and OCB (London, 1983). First, Scholl (1981) suggested that both role performance and innovative extra-role behaviors result from an individual's exp ectation that the behaviors will lead to valued outcomes or rewards. London (1983) argued that prospective rationality underlies the

PAGE 24

14 relationships between career motivation and career decisions and behaviors. According to the tenets of prospective rationality, individual s make their career decisions based on their expectations for the future. Expectancy theory, a motivational model based on prospective rationality, suggests individuals are more likely to expend effort on work behaviors that they expect will lead to valued career outcomes (Scholl, 1981; Vroom, 1962). In addition to expectancy theory, a numbe r of authors have ar gued and shown that, although ability predicts task performance, cont extual performance (i.e., OCB) is predicted by personality and moderated by the situation (Bor man, 1998; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Hogan et al., 1998; Organ, 1990; Organ & Ryan, 1995). To the extent that career motivation reflects individual personality (London, 1983), the proposed hy pothesis is consistent with this theory and results. Furthermore, an examination of London's ( 1983) treatise shows that career motivation is characterized by discretionary behaviors that f acilitate organizational effectiveness (i.e., OCB). Individuals who have high levels of career id entity, for example, will work longer hours, volunteer for assignments, and speak favorably of the company to others. High career insight may be demonstrated by initiating change, expressing enthusiasm for new experiences, and seeking opportunities to strengthen personal weaknesses. Employees who are highly resilient are also adaptable, have high levels of self-esteem, st rong inner work standards, and a development orientation. Demonstrating initiative and hi gh performance levels, readily learning new behaviors, working hard on difficult tasks, and engaging in self-development activities are behavioral demonstrations of these traits. Fina lly, Carson and Carson (1 998), provided empirical support for the proposed motivation OCB link. Using the measure developed by Carson and Bedeian (1994), the authors found that the three dimensions of career motivation, termed commitment by the authors, positively correlated with citizenship behavior. Hypothesis 2: Individuals who report high le vels of career motivation will report and receive higher ratings on citizenship perform ance than will individuals who report lower levels of career motivation. Career/Occupational Commitment Theoreticians suggest that, in addition to motivation, organizational behavior is a function of commitment. OCB is also assumed therefore, to result from high levels of occupational commitment. Hall (1971) defined career commitment as: the strength of ones motivation to work in a chosen career role. (p. 59) In the last several decades this concept has received increasing theoretical and empirical notice resulting in a somewhat confusing mix of terminology, definitions, and measures.

PAGE 25

15 In Morrow's (1983) review of the work co mmitment literature, she categorized career commitment with career salience (Greenhaus, 1971) and professional commitment (Sheldon, 1971) to describe career focus, defined as "the importance of work and a career in one's total life" (p. 488). Although Morrow argued that career co mmitment was partially redundant with other foci of work commitment (e.g. job involvemen t, central life interest), she acknowledged the utility of denoting an attachment to an occupation or career exclusive of the organization or work environment. Other authors have similarly noted the value of delineating separate referents of work or organizational commitment (Becker, 1992; Elleme rs, de Gilder, and van den Heuvel, 1998; Wiener & Vardi, 1980). Hall (1971) theoretically distinguished career commitment from commitment to the job and organization. Reichers (1985) later proposed that individuals develop psychological attachments to various groups or constituencies within or surrounding the organizational setting "that compete for the individual's energies, identifications, and commitments." (p. 469) There are conceptual similarities among these concepts, however, occupational commitment has been shown to be empirically distinguishable from organizational commitment (Colarelli & Bishop, 1990; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990), job involvement (Blau, 1985, 1988, 1989), and team commitment (Ellemers et al., 1998). Although Hall (1971) originally used the term career commitment, the construct has also been described as commitment to one's profession or occupation. Occupational commitment is arguably a more representative term as it incl udes nonprofessionals who are committed to their work and avoids the broad and more confusing c onceptualization of a career that spans a lifetime (Blau et al., 1993; Meyer, Allen & Smith, 19 93). For these reasons, the term occupational commitment (OCC) was used in this dissertation, defined as "one's attitude, including affect, belief, and behavioral intention, toward his/ her occupation." (Blau et al, 1993, p. 311) Theoreticians and researchers have recently s hown a heightened interest in occupational commitment. There are at least two reasons for th is attention. First, employees who witnessed, or are victims of, company reorganizations, layoffs, a nd an expanding contingent workforce, may be increasingly committed to their occupations and l ess committed to any one organization (Colarelli & Bishop, 1990, Irving, Coleman, & Cooper, 1997). Second, research has shown that occupational commitment is related to and pr edicts important indivi dual and organizational variables. Studies conducted in different organiza tional settings, for example, have shown that occupational commitment correlates with skill development (Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1994; Aryee & Tan 1992), job withdrawal intentions (Aryee & Tan, 1992), career withdrawal cognitions

PAGE 26

16 (Blau, 1985) the number of job a pplications submitted at current or potential employers (Ellemers et al., 1998), salary (Colarelli & Bishop, 1990), and overall performance effectiveness (Somers & Birnbaum, 1998). Occupational Commitment and OCB Career motivated employees were purported to perform OCB because they expect that valued career outcomes will result. Organizational rewards are not given for the performance of OCB on a one-to-one correspondence, however. That is, OCB is generally rewarded in the a ggregate rather than for individual behaviors. Although the expectation of career rewards may serve as motivation to initiate the behaviors, their continuation as a viable career strategy may also depend on occupational commitment. Colarelli and Bishop (1990) argued that career commitment was important for career progress and development. Occupational commitment serves "as a stabilizing force that acts to maintain behavioral direction when the expectancy/equity conditions are not met" (Scholl, 1981, p. 593). Individuals who are highly committed to their occupations will perform higher levels of OCB. Occupationally committed employees are more likely to have established occupational goals, and will be attached to, identify with, a nd be involved in achieving those goals. To do so, they will exert high levels of energy and effort (e .g., come in early, stay late, volunteer to help others) and perform extra-role behaviors that may lead to valued career related benefits (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). High levels of commitment can stabilize and maintain citizenship behaviors over time or when they are not immediately rewarded by the organization. At least two authors have presented models that can help to explain the link between motivation, commitment, and OCB. The two models discussed here explain the role of organizational commitment in predicting performance; the underlying mechanisms, however, apply to occupational commitment as well. Drawing on the work of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), Wiener (1982) proposed that employees organizational behavior is a function of two components. The first component is a cognitive/instrumental motivation based on the pe rceptions of the outcomes that will result from their behaviors and the value employees place on those outcomes. This instrumental component is consistent with the expectancy theory of motiv ation discussed previously. The second behavioral driver Wiener proposed is commitment. Indivi duals organizational behavior may reflect commitment when the actions are persistent, invo lve personal sacrifice, or reflect a preoccupation with the commitment object. Scholl (1981) presented a model similar to Wiener's (1982), describing commitment as a force driving or explaining behavioral consiste ncy. Scholl argued, however, that commitment

PAGE 27

17 could result more broadly from four separate m echanisms: individual investments, the norm of reciprocity, an individual's perception that he/she lacks viable alternatives, or identification with the occupational role. Both authors agree that e xpectancy/instrumental motivation must exist to initiate behaviors; behavioral performance then serves to increase commitment to the occupation. The majority of the research showing that committed employees perform OCB has focused on commitment to the organization (Organ & Ryan, 1995). As mentioned previously however, recent changes in the employment contract could attenuate the relationship between organizational commit and OCB and augment th e link between occupational commitment and OCB. Few studies specifically examined the rela tionship between occupational commitment and citizenship behaviors and the results are inconc lusive. Meyer et al., (1993) proposed that their three dimensional model of organizational co mmitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991) could be generalized and extended to other foci of commitment. They developed and validated an instrument to measure the affective, normative, and continuance dimensions of occupational commitment, hypothesizing that the components would have differential antecedents and performance outcomes. Results demonstrated th at occupational commitment was related, and added unique variance, to self-reported citizensh ip behaviors even after the inclusion of organizational commitment. In two separate studies, Aryee and his colleagues (Aryee & Tan, 1992; Aryee et al., 1994) showed career commitment predicte d voluntary behaviors categorized as skill development. Self-development is one dimensi on of organizational spontaneity, conceptually similar to OCB (George & Brief, 1992). Other research provides indirect evidence fo r the hypothesized link between occupational commitment and OCB. Becker (1992), for example, found that commitment to top management, to supervisors, and to work groups explained significant variance in self and supervisory ratings of citizenship behaviors over and above that explained by organizational commitment. Although Becker did not specifically measure occupational co mmitment, his results suggest that voluntarily performed extra-role behaviors may be driven by commitments to more than just the organization. Not all the extant research supports the hy pothesized occupational commitment OCB relationship (e.g., Somers & Birnbaum, 1998). In two related studies, Ellemers et al., (1998) developed a measure and empirically distinguished career commitment from team and organizational commitment. They found that car eer commitment was related to the number of

PAGE 28

18 hours worked but did not predict supervisory rati ngs of task abilities, contextual qualities (i.e., OCB), relational abilities, and overall perform ance. These results, although challenging the proposed hypothesis, may not be a reliable test of the premise. The authors factor analyzed supervisory ratings of the 18 performance dimensions employed by their participant organization. Their contextual performance factor included rati ngs of enthusiasm and initiative, which may not accurately capture the subtle aggregation of behaviors that define OCB. This work was undertaken to directly test the hypothesized re lationship using established measures of OCB and commitment. Hypothesis 3: Individuals who report high le vels of occupational commitment will report and receive higher ratings on citizenship pe rformance than will individuals who report lower levels of occupational commitment. Conceptual Distinction The model presented in Fig. 1 describes three career-focused variables argued to be positively related to OCB. Although job involvement, career motivation, and occupational commitment may be positively related, they are also conceptually and empirically distinguishable. Job involvement captures an individual's affinity for his or her current job. As such it reflects a more short-term or immediate attachment to the work the person performs. Job involvement may arise from job characteristics, th e significance or complexity of the tasks or the autonomy the job provides. Employees may also wo rk long hours and derive satisfaction from their current job because they are personally involved with their work team. In both circumstances they may have no desire to adva nce in or remain comm itted to the same career field. Blau et al., (1993), for example, found that the correlation between job involvement and occupational commitment was only .27, which ma y be attributable to common method variance (Morrow, 1983). A career-focused person could be involved in his or her current job for the same reasons, but would not necessarily be so. A person could also perform well in his or her current job because it is perceived as a definable step in a longer-term career path. That is, the current job may be only relatively interesting, but may provi de the necessary skills, experience, or exposure to help achieve a potential career goal. Career motivation, by contrast, has a broade r perspective and a longer-term orientation than does job involvement. Career motivation refl ects the interest in, and desire and willingness to achieve, career goals that extend beyond the confines of the current role. Career motivated employees are likely to be highly involved in th eir current job. London (1993b) measured the career identity domain in part by asking about le vels of job involvement and evidence suggests

PAGE 29

19 that the two constructs are more than mode rately correlated (Carson & Bedeian, 1994). The insight domain of motivation focuses on employees' knowledge of their personal strengths and weaknesses and the extent to which they have established career goals. The third motivation domain, career resilience, captures employees' work adaptability, risk taking, and desire for job, coworker, and organizational change. Neither of these two domains would necessarily overlap with job involvement. Moreover, research h as shown that although they are significantly correlated, the size of the coefficients are .30 or less (Carson & Bedeian, 1994). Occupational commitment may include aspects of both job involvement and career motivation but has distinct characteristics as well. Employees may be committed to their occupations because they identify psychologically with them. That is, they may view themselves as an accountant, a banker, or a teacher. They may, however, be only marginally involved in their current job. Aryee and Tan (1992) found that car eer commitment was moderately correlated with work role salience, which is conceptually si milar to job involvement. Perhaps the greatest conceptual similarities exist between career motivation and occupational commitment. It was argued, however, that employees may espouse commitment to their occupations without a clear understanding of their strengths and weaknesses or having established career goals. They may also exhibit occupational commitment without a desire to advance further in their careers, depending, for example, on their career stage, a c oncept that is presented later in this proposal. This dissertation proposed that job involvement, career motivation, and occupational commitment are distinct concepts with conceptual similarities. It was argued that a career-focused individual would exhibit relativel y high levels of all three factors, which would positively correlate with OCB. Career Focus and OCB Moderators The proposed model suggests that three career-related variables are related to citizenship performance. However, situational factors a nd individual perceptions may serve as boundary conditions on the career focus OCB relationshi p (Hogan et al., 1998; Organ, 1990, Organ & Ryan, 1995) Specifically, the model suggests that an individuals career stage and his or her perceptions regarding career plateau will moderate the proposed relationships. Career Stage Halls (1971) definition of a career includ es the personal changes that individuals experience as they progress through their work lives. Developmental and vocational psychologists, among other experts (Hall, 1976; Ornstein & Isabella, 1993; Sonnenfeld & Kotter,

PAGE 30

20 1982; Super, 1957), have found that, as individua ls age, they advance through qualitatively different life cycles or stages that are unique to each person, yet share a common sequence and temporal character. Levinson (1986), for example, described the life cycle as a recurring series of eras and transitional periods, all of which have different biological, sociological, and psychological characteristics. Super (Super, Savickas, & Super, 1996) and his colleagues proposed that individuals lives and their careers progress through relatively predictable stages in which they are faced with different personal, car eer, developmental, and psychological tasks that are accompanied by, or result in, changing need s, values, and attitudes. Changing needs and attitudes can result in changes in individuals career concerns, motivations and work orientations, and behaviors throughout their life cycles (Adler & Aranya, 1984; Elsass & Ralston, 1989; Feldman, 1988). Although there are variations among the life a nd career stage models in terminology and emphasis, four career stages are frequently delin eated: exploration, establishment, maintenance, and disengagement (Feldman, 1988; Hall & N ougaim, 1968; Super et al., 1996). These stages roughly correspond to the early, middle, and late adulthood eras proposed by Levinson (1986). Exploration During the exploration stage, an individu al's main career tasks are to attempt to identify potential career interests, to obtain tr aining and build skills, and explore alternative occupations and organizations. Ente ring the labor market in a tentative career field, an individual will generally be concerned with learning the tec hnical aspects of the job, the norms and values of the organization, and gaining peer and organizational acceptance as a competent contributor (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994; Sonnenfeld & Kotter, 1982). Establishment Having achieved a basic level of competence, individuals next enter the establishment phase where the ma jor focus is on settling down and achieving growth and advancement within their chosen occupation. Duri ng establishment the individual is no longer "so concerned with fitting into the organization (m oving inside) as he is with moving upward and mastering it" (Hall, 1976, p. 54). Employees may look for opportunities for personal and professional development and their greatest concerns center on upward mobility, achievement, mastery, and gaining independence (Cr on & Slocum, 1986; Super et al., 1996). Maintenance Individuals experiencing the mid-career or maintenance stage typically face two major tasks. First, they often face mid-life transitions in which they reassess and reevaluate their career choices and accomplishm ents relative to their personal ambitions (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994; Levi nson, 1986). Second, having atta ined a measure of career and organizational success, they are challenged to main tain that level of proficiency, to remain

PAGE 31

21 productive, and to avoid obsolescence. This may entail finding innovative ways to perform routine tasks, retraining, updating their skills to remain current with recent developments in their field, or acquiring new skills to pursue alternative career or personal opportunities (Super et al., 1996). Disengagement The final adjustment that most workers face is disengagement, where individuals begin to plan for a successful trans ition from full employment to retirement. At the same time, they must maintain effective perform ance levels and self-esteem at a time when they may be experiencing the physical challenges of advancing age and the negative cultural stereotypes with which our society views olde r workers (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994; Hall, 1976; Levinson, 1986) These career stages are roughly age defined, and have been most frequently operationalized and measured by age. There is a growing acknowledgement that individuals cycle through the stages as they change job, career, or organizational boundaries (Feldman, 1988; Schein, 1978; Super et al., 1996). Hall (1976), for example, argued that a person who has just completed advanced training and is beginning his or her first assignment in a new profession would likely face the same career issues regardl ess of age. Evidence sugg ests that career stage issues do vary widely across age groups particularly in the recent work environment where workers are, by choice or necessity, retraining and changing jobs and careers more frequently than in the past. Nevertheless, the four career stages should be positively correlated with age (Cron & Slocum, 1986). Career Stage and OCB It was suggested that career stage modera tes the relationship between a career-focused individual's attitudes and motivations and his or her performance of OCB (see Fig. 1). Evidence shows that career stage is related to job attitudes and motivation (e.g, Cron & Slocum, 1986; Stumpf & Rabinowitz, 1981). In addition, both Levinson's and Super's developmental models suggest that career stage can moderate the relationships between these career variables and OCB. Specifically, it was hypothesized there would be stronger relationships between job involvement, career motivation, and career commitment and OCB in the establishment and maintenance career stages than in the exploration and disengageme nt stages. Those relationships are presented graphically in Fig. 2. The next section explains and presents evidence to support the hypothesized relationships.

PAGE 32

Career Focus VariablesOCB Establish & Maintain Explore & Disengage Figure 2. Hypothesized relationship between career focus variables, career stage, and OCB. Exploration The relationships between job involvement, career motivation, and career commitment will be attenuated in the exploration career stage relative to the establishment and maintenance stages for a number of reasons. To begin, these relationships should be weaker at this initial career boundary because job involvement, career motivation, and career commitment levels are likely to be lower in this early stage regardless of citizenship performance (Cron & Slocum, 1986; DeConinck, 1993; London, 1983; Noe et al., 1990). In the exploration stage, when individuals are investigating various occupational choices to maximize their future career goals (Hall, 1971), they may be less involved in any particular job unless they are intrinsically challenged by the task characteristics, responsibility, and or opportunities for advancement (Hall, 1976; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1981). Lorence and Mortimer (1985), for example, found that job involvement was relatively less stable in the early than the later career stages. Career motivation and commitment levels will also be lower as individuals struggle to understand their skills and job requirements and find occupational and organizational matches. Second, employees who do not feel challenged or motivated in the exploration stage of their careers are more likely to move on to new jobs or organizations than to perform citizenship behaviors to gain rewards in their current jobs (Hall, 1976; Viega, 1983). To the extent that these career-focused variables drive OCB, there should be a weaker relationship between these and OCB in the exploration stage than the later career stages. In the early career stage, the developmental tasks individuals face are to learn their jobs, gain experience, and become socialized to the work routines, work groups, and supervisors 22

PAGE 33

23 (Feldman, 1988; Super et al., 1996). Employees who are focused on fitting in and gaining occupational self-confidence are not likely to go beyond the established task requirements. They may not have established career goals and ma y not recognize or understand the value of performing OCB. Moreover, relatively inexperien ced employees are not likely to have the time and energy to invest in OCB even if they percei ve that it will be instrumental to achieving their career goals. Their work performance may be lo wer than the performance of employees in later career stages because they lack training, skills and experience (DeConinck, 1993). Cron and Slocum (1986), for example, found that performance varied by stage with lower performance in the exploration stage than other three stages. OCB performance levels should also be lower from employees in this group. Establishment A stronger positive relationship was proposed between the three career variables and OCB for people in the establishment stage than for those at either the initial or terminal career stages. In the early years of the establishment phase some individuals may transition to new jobs or occupations before "it becomes clear that the life work will be a succession of unrelated jobs" (Super, Crites, Hummel, & Moser, 1957 cited in Hall, 1976). Individuals who exhibit these transitory careers (Greenhaus & Calla nan, 1994) may never become involved, motivated, or committed to a par ticular job or occupation and are less likely to exhibit OCB. Most employees however, are more involved, motivated, and committed to their jobs and their occupations as they progress into and through the establishment phase than are early or late stage employees. King et al., (1998) argued that both career motivation and commitment grow in stages over time and evidence supports their cont ention (London, 1993a). These higher levels of career related variables should be reflected in higher correlations with OCB regardless of the level of OCB. However, it was presumed that overall levels of OCB would increase in the establishment stage for a number of reasons. To begin, individuals who are established in their jobs or careers have mastered the fundamental requirements of their jobs and have more time and energy to expand their behavioral repertoire beyond that which is prescribed by the role. Thus, the possibility of performing extra role behaviors is more feasible at this stage. In addition, experienced employees are more likely than their less experienced coworkers to have seen other people perform citizenship behaviors and to recognize their potential instrumental value. In the establishment stage, employees' prim ary developmental tasks are to become stabilized, consolidated, and to advance in thei r occupational positions (Super et al., 1996). They

PAGE 34

24 are concerned with striving for authority by exhibiting positive work attitudes and satisfactory performance. As their task performance levels in crease, employees search for additional ways to secure their organizational position and distingui sh themselves from their coworkers. Career focused employees who have reached the establishment phase are more likely to exhibit extended work involvement, to ask for challenging assi gnments, to volunteer to help coworkers and supervisors, and to become involved in organizational life. That is, as employees transition through their establishment career phase, they ar e more likely to perform OCB as a means to achieve their valued career goals. Greenhaus and Callanan (1994) argued that achie vement is a more appropriate term than advancement to encompass the varied career goals for which individuals may strive. They argue that a number of career tasks become more sa lient during the establishment phase. Included in those tasks are demonstrating increasing compet ence in work assignments, acquiring authority and responsibility, developing longand short-term career goals, and developing and implementing strategies to achieve those goals. OCB was proposed to be a viable strategy to help achieve career goals. The focus on career strategies and goals during this stage would also suggest stronger relationships between j ob involvement, career motivation, and career commitment and OCB during this stage. Maintenance As shown in Fig. 2, stronger relationships are hypothesized between the career-focused variables and OCB for people in th e maintenance stage th an for those in the exploration or disengagement stages. The strengt h of the relationships in this phase should be comparable to the establishment stage. Similar to the establishment phase, individuals in the maintenance stage are likely to have high leve ls of job involvement, career motivation, and occupational commitment. In fact, involvement, motivation, and commitment levels may be at their highest levels in this stage, in part b ecause of the increasingly high investments that many individuals have made in thei r jobs, occupations, and feasibly their organizations (Adler & Aranya, 1984; London, 1993a; Lorence & Mortimer, 1985; Slocum & Cron, 1985; Smart, 1998). These higher levels suggest higher correlations with OCB as well. It was proposed that employees in the maintena nce stage perform OCB at levels that are comparable to those in the establishment phase, although the underlying motivations may vary slightly. As mentioned previously, having established themselves in an occupation, many individuals reach a transition period where they r eevaluate their abilities, talents, and interests, their personal and occupational choices, a nd the congruence between their goals and achievements (Feldman, 1988; Super et al., 1996). This reevaluation may result in career changes

PAGE 35

25 that interrupt the traditional career stage path. An individual who goes back to school or changes occupations at this transition point recycles back to the exploration career stage. Those individuals who do not make major career or o ccupational changes enter the maintenance stage and face two developmental tasks. First, they must deal with the ramifications of the mid-life transition and second, they must remain current and avoid obsolescence. An individual in the maintenance phase is "no longer an up-and-coming star, nor close to retirement" but rather "firmly entrenched in the middle years" of his or her career (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994, p. 193). It was suggested that career focused indivi duals in the maintenance phase would perform OCB for two reasons. First, citizenship perfo rmance may help career-focused individuals maintain a competitive advantage when their t ask performance has stab ilized or when their technical training is becoming obsolete. Employees who are involved in their jobs and highly motivated demonstrate commitment to the organiza tion, for example, by attending meetings and maintaining a consistently positive attitude. Th ey may volunteer for training or difficult assignments that can reduce the likelihood of career obsolescence (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994; Hall, 1976). These citizenship-type behaviors are representative of a highly career motivated employee (London, 1983) and may be perceived as a simpler or less time consuming career strategy to maintain performance levels and gain recogn ition than going back to school to retrain and update skills. McEnrue (1989) found that you nger employees were more willing to engage in self-development activities than the older employees studied, although both groups were similarly desirous of advancement. Second, OCB may presen t a mechanism for coping with the challenges of the mid-life transition. Employees in the main tenance stage may have changing career goals with less emphasis on getting ahead and more emphasis on security and balance in their lives. Career focused individuals may offer to help coworkers or mentor new employees who have more up-to-date technical skills but may lack bus iness acumen or knowledge of the organization's politics and culture. This facilitates mutual learning, which may help the more experienced worker learn new skills and allows them to e xpress their generativity, a developmental issue associated with this career stage (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994; Hall, 1976; Levinson, 1986). Disengagement The relationships between the career-focused variables and OCB are expected to be attenuated at the disengagement stage of the career relative to the establishment and maintenance stages (see Fig. 2), however, this relationship was more difficult to predict. At this juncture employees may begin to experience a decline in energy and interest for their occupation. Some evidence suggests that job in volvement and perceived job challenge are lower

PAGE 36

26 in this final stage than the two previous career stages (DeConinck, 1993). Although careerfocused individuals may still be relatively involved in their jobs at this terminal stage, they are also anticipating and preparing for retirement, and work-related involveme nt may begin to wane relative to other personal or family issues. Car eer motivation and commitment levels may still be high and individuals are likely to maintain their task performance levels (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994; London, 1993a). In fact, evidence suggests th at productivity in older workers is comparable to their younger coworkers and that absenteeism one behavioral demonstration of OCB, is actually lower among older workers (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994). Nevertheless, it was expected that overall levels of OCB may declin e among those in the disengagement stage. The senior worker may not perceive the value of OCB to help them achieve organizational rewards. Cron and Slocum (1986) found for example, that job attitudes, psychological success, and the perception that performance leads to rewards was not related to performance in this final career stage. This may result, in part from a decline in achievement aspirations as the focus shifts to post retirement living. Hypothesis 4: Career stage moderates th e relationships between the career-focused variables (i.e., job involvement, career mo tivation, occupational commitment) and the performance of OCB. Specifically, the relations hips between the career focused variables (i.e., job involvement, career motivation, o ccupational commitment) and the performance of OCB will be stronger in the establishment and maintenance stages than the exploration and disengagement stages. Career-focused employees organizational perform ance will also be influenced by their perceptions regarding their current job challe nges and future promotability. The next section discusses employees perceptions of career plateaus and the influence that those perceptions may have on the performance of OCB. Perceptions of Career Plateau Ference, Stoner, and Warren ( 1977) defined a career plateau as that point in a career where the likelihood of additional hierarchi cal promotion is very low. (p. 602) Two circumstances were presumed to result in a career plateau: (1) an individuals ambition, skills, or abilities were incongruent with the needs of the job in a given career path or (2) the organization lacked job opportunities for qualified and willing candidates. Based on Ference et al.s, (1977) definition, researchers historically operationalized plateau status based on job tenure. Employees were defined as plateaued if their current job tenure exceeded five or seven years (e.g., Hall, 1985; Slocum, Cron, Hansen, & Rawlings, 1985;

PAGE 37

27 Stout, Slocum & Cron, 1988). Because of the hierarchical structure of most organizations, early plateau research typically examined an orga nizational, as opposed to a career, phenomenon (Blau et al., 1993; Chao, 1990; Hall, 1985). Recently, two major changes have occurred in career plateau theory and research. First, researchers expanded their definition of career plateaus to include organizational responsibility (Feldman & Weitz, 1988). Bardwick (1986) for exam ple, proposed that work-related plateaus could be either structural, based on the hierarch ical restrictions within organizations, or job content, which occur when individuals no long er feel challenged by their job responsibilities. Ference et al., (1977) alluded to this distincti on when they suggested that organizations provide job enrichment for employees who lack promotional opportunities. Viewed from this broader perspective, career plateaus could result from fact ors related to the job (e.g., lack of challenge or extrinsic rewards) in addition to individual and organizational factors (Feldman & Weitz, 1988). Research supports the conceptual distinction between hierarchical and job content plateaus (Carnazza, Korman, Ference, & Stoner, 1981; Hall, 1985). The second change arose from opposition to the u se of job tenure to measure plateaus. Chao (1990) and others (Gattiker & Larwood, 1990) argued that a persons subjective perception of his or her future career development is more important than the objective reality. This perceptual awareness "e merges slowly and inconsistently as they alternate acknowledging and denying it." (Bardwick, 1986, p. 89) Thus a pe rsons affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions to being plateaued may change or inte nsify over time (Elsass & Ralston, 1989; Stout et al., 1988). Career plateaus should therefore, be measured as a continuous perceptual probability rather than an objective dichotomy. Subsequent research has shown that career plateau perceptions account for more variance than objec tive plateau measures (i.e., tenure) in outcomes such as intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, organizational identification, career planning (Chao, 1990), intentions to quit, and instrument ality perceptions (Tremblay, Roger, & Toulouse 1995). Building on these two major changes, in tw o studies Allen and her colleagues (Allen, Poteet, & Russell, 1998; Allen, Russell, Poteet, & Dobbins, 1999) tested a subjective, multidimensional conception of career plateaus in two recent studies. Their results showed individuals perceptions of hierarchical or structural plateaus (i.e., promotional opportunities) were distinct from their perceptions of job conten t plateaus. The authors also found that these two forms were related to individua l and organizational outcomes.

PAGE 38

28 The concept of a career plateau frequen tly evokes negative connotations for both individuals and organizations; however, these ma y be unreasonable assumptions. Ference et al., (1977), for example, proposed that the majority of organizational workers are "solid citizens" who perform satisfactorily although they have r eached their career pinnacle (Patterson, Sutton, & Schuttenberg, 1987). Other researchers have similarl y warned that plateaus should not be viewed as synonymous with poor performance (Bardwick, 1986; Feldman & Weitz, 1988). Despite arguments to the contrary, eviden ce suggests that career plateaus can have negative individual and organizati onal implications. Career plateaus, for example, have been negatively associated with attitudes such as job satisfaction (Allen et al., 1998; Burke, 1989; Chao, 1990; Tremblay et al., 1995), and organi zational commitment (Allen et al., 1998; Stout et al., 1988) and identification (Chao, 1990). Plateaued employees have also reported greater absences (Near, 1985) and intentions to leave th eir organizations (Allen et al., 1998; Burke, 1989). Allen et al. (1998) argued and found that th e most negative outcomes were associated with those people who perceived themselves as double plateaued (p. 163). That is, they felt their jobs lacked both challenge and promotional op portunities, an occurrence that Bardwick (1986) had predicted. Career Plateaus and OCB This dissertation proposed that career focused individuals would engage in citizenship performance for instrumental purposes. Perceptions of career plateau were expected to moderate the relationships between the career-focused vari ables and the performance of OCB. As shown in Figure 3, a stronger relationship was proposed between the career-focused variables and those who report low perceptions of career plateau th an those who report high plateau perceptions. Research and theory support the proposed relationship, although no research had directly tested the link.

PAGE 39

Career Focus VariablesOCB Low Plateau Perceptions High Plateau Perceptions Figure 3. Hypothesized relationship between career focus variables, perceived career plateau, and OCB. First, although plateaued employees may report more negative job attitudes, their performance does not necessarily decline (Carnazza et al., 1981; Patterson et al., 1987; Tremblay & Roger 1993). In an intriguing longitudinal study, Stout et al., (1988) found that plateau status did not distinguish objective sales performance; sales for the non-plateaued group however, increased over a three-year period. Bardwick (1986) suggested that employees are hesitant to believe that they have become plateaued and may initially maintain performance levels. This appears rational in that organizational evaluations and decisions are more likely to be based on required task performance. Individuals who are dissatisfied with their plateaued status may feel constrained to maintain effective task performance levels for fear of organizational retribution. They may manifest their negative attitudes, however, by withholding extra-role performance or OCB. In addition, researchers have identified relationships between career plateaus and other career related attitudes and behaviors. Plateaued individuals have been found to be less job involved (Allen et al., 1998), less likely to make career plans (Chao, 1990), and may have lower career aspirations (Tremblay & Roger, 1993). Employees who are not involved in their jobs and do not make career plans are less likely to be motivated to go beyond required task performance. By contrast, Gould and Penley (1984) found that non-plateaued employees were more likely than plateaued employees to use specific career strategies (e.g., extended work involvement, networking, self nomination) to enhance upward mobility and gain 29

PAGE 40

30 compensation benefits. Those career strategies, wh ich may be viewed as citizenship behaviors, also predicted salary progress in managers. Finally Organ (1990) cited evidence from Farh Podsakoff and Organ (1988) who found job scope was directly linked to the complia nce aspect of OCB. This implies (and Organ suggested) that a person who believes they have a stimulating job (i.e., not plateaued) is more likely to perform citizenship behaviors. Conversely, individuals who feel their jobs lack challenge are less likely to engage in OCB. Some recent evidence suggests more negative consequences may arise from job content plateaus (Allen et al., 1998) than from the hierarchical plateaus that are an inevitable byproduct of organizational structures (Bardwick, 1986). The accumulated data suggests, however, that negative consequences derive from both hierarchical and job content plateaus. Based on the above arguments, it was pr oposed that individuals' perceptions of career plateaus would influence their performance of OCB. Hypothesis 5: The relationships between the career focused variables (i.e., job involvement, career motivation, and occupational commitment) and the performance of OCB will be stronger for those individuals w ho report lower perceptions of career plateau than for those who report higher perceptions of career plateau. Rating Source (Target) One final variable that could influence th e relationships between the career focused variables and OCB was the rating source. That is, research suggests that the relationships between job involvement, career motivation, and o ccupational commitment and OCB could vary depending on whether the individual, or his or her peer or supervisor is evaluating the behaviors. Performance evaluations of task behaviors, for example, often differ by the organizational level of the rater. A meta-analysis performed by Harri s and Schaubroeck (1988) found that peer and supervisor ratings were more highly correlated than both self and peer and self and supervisor ratings. Job type moderated these relationships such that self-supervisor and self-peer ratings were lower for management jobs that are more nebul ous or difficult to define than for blue-collar jobs that have more routine or concrete tasks. Th is implies that ratings of behaviors that are also more difficult to define, that is, OCB, may al so vary depending on the person performing the rating. A limited amount of data shows that the rate r's organizational level can also influence OCB ratings (Becker & Vance, 1993; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Rioux & Penner, 2001). Allen, Barnard, Rush, and Russell (2000) found hi gher correlations between subordinate and supervisory ratings than between self and others' ratings of OCB. Conway (1999) meta-analyzed

PAGE 41

31 ratings of task, contextual (i.e., OCB), and overall performance and found greater convergence between supervisor and peer ra tings on all performance dimensions than between supervisor and self-ratings and peer and self-ratings. At least two explanations have been presented to explain rating source discrepancy (Borman, 1997; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). Different raters may observe distinct instances of performance and then evaluate th em accordingly or they may differentially define or weight performance categories. For example, authors have argued and found that supervisors and employees differ in how broadly th ey define the boundaries of job tasks and OCB, which may influence the appraisal processes and subsequent ev aluations (Hui et al., 2000; Lam, Hui, & Law; 1999; Morrison, 1994). Accordingly, the lower co rrelations found across rating sources, relative to between rating sources, may not indicate unre liability, but rather valid evaluations based on different performance information (Borman, 1974; Borman, 1991). As suggested previously, the nature of the OCB performance domain increases the probability of rating source discrepancies. Raters attributions for citizenship performance and their subsequent evaluations may depend on th e frequency and timing of the performance and their observation of OCB (Allen & Rush, 1998; Bolino, 1999). OCB may not be exhibited every day and is more likely to be observed, evalua ted, and rewarded in the aggregate than for individual behavioral instances (Organ, 1997). Career-focused employees must regularly perform OCB in the presence of their supervisors in or der to obtain instrumental rewards. It was reasonable, therefore, to presume that there w ould be a stronger relationship between the careerfocused variables and supervisor, rather than peer, ratings of OCB, particularly for public or observable behaviors directed toward the orga nization (OCBO) (Allen et al., 1998). However, peers may attend to or assign greater importan ce to helping behaviors than do supervisors (Conway, 1999), which could increase their OCB ratings directed at individuals. In addition, the motivation underlying the performance of OCB may va ry depending on the target and the type of behavior. Employees may help their supervisor s for instrumental purposes and help their coworkers because they like them or in response to team or work group norms. Finally, much of the OCB research has examined either self or s upervisors' ratings, of OCB exclusively (Allen et al., 2000). To gain a more thor ough understanding of these issues, this proposal tried to obtain supervisor, peer, and self-ratings of OCBI, OCBO, and in-role performance, (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Accordingly, the following research question was posed:

PAGE 42

32 Research question: Does the relationship between the career-focused variables (i.e., job involvement, career motivation, and occupa tional commitment) and the evaluation of OCB differ as a function of the person performing the rating? Summary Extant research on the correlates of OCB has been only moderately successful in explaining the variance in OCB ratings. A model of OCB as a career development strategy was proposed to expand this base. It was hypothesized that career focused employees, those who are more involved in their jobs, career motivated, a nd committed to their occupations, would receive higher ratings of citizenship performance than would those employees who are less career focused. The nature of these relationships ma y vary, however depending on the individuals' career stage and their perceptions regarding thei r career plateau. Finally, this research attempted to determine whether and how the rating source would influence the relationships between the career-focused variables and the evaluation of OCB.

PAGE 43

33 Method Participants A power analysis was performed to determin e the appropriate number of participants to be included in the study (Cohen, 1988). Table 1 presents the de tails of that analysis. The researchers plan was to obtain complete data from 225 participants and OCB data from each participants supervisor and one peer. The researcher contacted the Human Resources Director of a medium-size consulting firm located in the upper mid-west. After receiving initial approval for the proposal, the researcher sent the organization an outline of the study and the anticipated data collection process (Appendix A). The company agreed to participate with the data collection via an online survey; the response ra te from this Corporate sample did not, however, provide sufficient sample size. A number of other organizations were then solicited through personal contacts and business associates; written proposals were subm itted to those who expressed initial interest. From this second solicitation attempt, a Univers ity in the southeastern United States agreed to participate. Not all employees had Internet access and the Human Resource Department of the University was not able to provide email addr esses for those who did. Data from the University sample were, therefore, collected through pape r and pencil surveys. Together, the Corporation and the University provided a sufficient sample size. The procedures used with the two different groups are described in the following sections. Response Rate The Corporation A global email was sent to all 657 employees in the corporation worldwide asking them to participate. From that request, 155, or 24% of the employees completed the participant survey. Requests to comp lete the coworker and supervisor surveys were sent only to the 155 coworkers and supervisors named by the responding participants. From those 155 requests, 75 (48%) of the coworkers and 54 ( 35%) of the supervisors responded. Complete sets of matched data (i.e., a participant, coworker, and supervisor) were obtained from 30 (19%) of the participants, 5% of the total Corporate popul ation. A partial set, that is, a participant and

PAGE 44

34 either a coworker or supervisor data were obtaine d for 99 (64%) of the participants or 15% of the Corporate population. Table 1. Power Analysis for Required Number of Participants Power Calculated from Cohen's (1988) Formula for Hierarchical Analysis Significance level = .05 (by convention, p. 531) Desired power = .80 (by convention, p. 445) Effect size (f 2 ) = .15 (by convention for medium effect size, p. 478) k y = 1; k x = 3; k A = 1; u = 3 s = 1 (as a function of k y and k x from Table 10.2.1, p. 475) Trial estimates v = 120; L = 11.1 (Table 9.4.2, p. 452) Implied v is obtained using the trial value for L (equation 10.4.1, p. 515) Implied v = (L/f 2 )u-1 = 11.1/.15(3)-1 Implied v = 221 Interpolate L based on the implie d v (equation 10.4.2, p. 515) Interpolated L = L L [((1/v L ) (1/v))/((1/v L ) (1/v u ))/(L L -L U )] = 11.1 ((1/120 1/221)/(1/120 0)(11.1 10.9)) = 11.1 .092 Interpolated L = 11.01 Calculate iterated v using interpol ated L (equation 10.4.1, p. 515) Iterated v = (L/f 2 )u -1 = (11.01/.15)(3) 1 Iterated v = 219.1 Calculate the number of participants usi ng the iterated v (equation 10.4.3, p. 515) N = 1/s(v+u/2-1) + ((k y +k x +3)/2) + max(k c ,k A +k G ) = 1/1(219+1.5-1) + (7.2) + 1 N = 224 The University Survey packets were mailed to 1,000 employees of the University. From that group, 106 (11%) participants returned thei r respective surveys. Surv eys were also returned from 99 (10%) coworkers and 90 (9%) supervisors. In the University sa mple, some coworkers and/or supervisors returned surveys for which no pa rticipant data were received. Sixty-nine (7%)

PAGE 45

35 complete sets of matched data were received or 58% of th e participants. A total of 103 participants, (10% of the sample), or 87% of the pa rticipants had either a coworker or supervisor return a survey. Overall Response Rate In sum, the study consisted of 261 participants from both the Corporate and University samples, for a 16% ove rall response rate. Ninety-nine (6%) complete sets of matched data were obtained; 202 (12%) pa rtial sets of data were obtained, which included a participant and either a coworker or a supervisor. Demographic Information of Respondents Participant Data The highlights of the participant demographics are displayed in Table 2. Just less than 50% of the participants we re between 21 and 35 years of age and 67% were female. Respondents were predominantly Caucasian (85%) and highly educated. That is, 85% of participants reported having at least a four year degree; 49% of that group indicated they had either a Masters or Doctoral degree. Participan ts reported they had been on their current jobs an average of 4.10 years and in their current orga nization 6.07 years. In addition, on average participants indicated they had been in their cu rrent occupation over 9 years. Finally, the majority of participants were in the establishment (26.8% ) or the maintenance (26.1%) career stage. A smaller percentage of respondents indicated they were in the exploration (24.9%) or disengagement (22.2%) stage. Coworker/Supervisor Data The demographic data obtained from coworkers and supervisors is displayed in Table 2. Similar to the participants, both coworkers and supervisors were also typically female (73% and 70% respectively). Based on respondents from whom educational data were obtained, these people were also highly educated. Approximately 56% of the coworkers responding had post graduate degrees; 25% had a four year degree. Although only 28 supervisors provided educationa l data, 68% of those indicated they had a doctoral degree. Finally, both coworkers and supervisors indicat ed they had relatively close contact with the participants for whom they provided ratings. N early 50% of the coworkers responded that they saw the participants they were evaluating at l east 2 3 times per day and another 40% saw them at least 2 -3 times per week. Similarly, 40% of supervisors indicated they had contact with the participants at least 2 3 times per day, while another 47% reported observing them 2 3 times per week. As might be expected, supervisors tended to have more tenure on their jobs (5.19 years) and with their organizations (10.11 years) th an did coworkers (3.49 years and 5.78 years

PAGE 46

36 respectively). The number of years that coworkers (3.22) and supervisors (3.92) reported working with the rated participants was similar, however.

PAGE 47

37 Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants. Variable Participants N % AGE < 20 0 0.0 21 25 33 12.7 26 30 43 16.6 31 35 51 19.9 36 40 23 8.9 41 45 29 11.2 46 50 26 10.0 51 55 25 9.7 56 60 19 7.3 61 65 5 1.9 65 + 5 1.9 GENDER Male 84 32.4 Female 175 67.6 RACE Caucasian/White 221 85.3 African-American 11 4.3 Hispanic 7 2.7 Asian 7 2.7 American Indian or Alaska 7 2.7 Other 6 2.6 EDUCATION High School degree 18 7.0 Associate/two year degree 18 7.0 Four year degree 51 19.8 Some graduate education 43 16.7 Masters degree 76 29.5 Doctoral degree 50 19.4 Other 2 .8 CAREER STAGE Exploration 65 24.9 Establishment 70 26.8 Maintain 68 26.1 Disengage 58 22.2 TENURE (Years) MEAN SD Job 4.10 5.26 Organization 6.07 6.99 Occupation 9.27 8.80 Note. N = Number of Participants % = Percentage of Participants SD = Standard Deviation Numbers for each category may not sum to total sample due to missing data.

PAGE 48

38 Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of Coworkers and Supervisors. Variable Coworker Supervisor N % N % GENDER Male 37 27.0 18 29.5 Female 100 73.0 43 70.5 EDUCATION High School degree 7 8.1 5 17.9 Associate/two year degree 2 2.3 0 0.0 Four year degree 22 25.6 2 7.1 Some graduate education 7 8.1 0 0.0 Masters degree 15 17.4 2 7.1 Doctoral degree 33 38.4 19 67.7 OBSERVATIONAL FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPANT 2 3 times per day 67 48.9 23 40.4 at least once per day 27 19.7 15 26.3 2 3 times per week 28 20.4 12 21.1 at least once per week 8 5.8 3 5.3 2 3 times per month 3 2.2 2 3.5 at least once a month 4 2.9 2 3.5 TENURE (Years) MEAN SD MEAN SD Job 3.50 4.75 5.19 4.94 Organization 5.79 5.84 10.11 7.72 With Participant 3.22 3.90 3.92 3.80 Note. N = Number of Coworkers/Supervisors for whom data were obtained % = Percentage of Coworkers/Supervisor SD = Standard Deviation Numbers for each category may not sum to total sample due to missing data. Materials Data were obtained by means of three surveys, one for participants and one each for supervisors and coworkers. The participant survey (Appendix A) included the measures designed to assess the study variables, demographic data and job and organizational tenure data. The supervisor and coworker surveys (Appendices B and C) included the OCB measure, demographics, and questions regardi ng contact with the participant. Measures Biographical Data Participants were asked to provide demographic data including their gender, age, and tenure in their current job, or ganization, and occupation. Supervisors and peers of the participants were asked to indicate their job and organizational tenure, the length of their relationships with the respective partic ipants and the frequency of contact.

PAGE 49

39 Job Involvement Participants completed the job i nvolvement subscale of the general work commitment index developed by Blau et al. (1993) (see Appendix A). This index was derived from an analysis of items compiled from conceptually similar instruments that were developed by other authors (e.g., career commitment [Blau, 1985, 1988, 1989], career involvement [Gould, 1979], job involvement [Kanungo, 1982], and career salience [Sekaran, 1982, 1986]). The job involvement instrument includes seven items from Kanungo's measure such as "The most important things that happen to me involve my present job." Participants rated the extent that they agreed that the statemen ts were descriptive of themselves using a 6-point Likert scale ("strongly disagree" = 1 to "strongly agree" = 6). Blau et al. (1993) reported internal consistency from two studies of .78, and .79 and test-retest reliability of .91 for the involvement subscale. The internal consistency reliabilit y of the scale in the present study was .86. Occupational Commitment Participants also completed the occupational commitment subscale of the general work commitment index developed by Blau et al. (1993) and presented above. The 11-item scale includes items from Blau and his colleagues (1985, 1988, 1989), Gould (1979), and Sekaran (1982, 1986) such as "My o ccupational choice was a good decision." Blau et al. reported internal consistenc y reliabilities of .76 and .73 across two studies and test-retest reliability of .90 for the subscale. In the current study the internal consis tency reliability was .92. Career Motivation Career motivation was assessed using a measure developed by London (1993b) that focuses on feelings and attit udes related to career motivation. The 17-item instrument includes 5 items measuring career insight (e.g., "Know your strengths (the things you do well"), 7 items measuring career identity (e.g., "Define yourself by your work"), and 5 items for career resilience (e.g., "Can handle any work problems that come your way"). Each item was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = low, less develope d, would like to improve to 5 = high, well developed, no improvement needed). London repor ted internal consistency reliabilities of .80, .85, and .83 respectively for career resilience, insight, and identity. Responses to these 17 items in the current sample were factor analyzed to determine if they corresponded to the factors outlined by London (1993b). An iterated principle factor analysis was performed specifying three factors. The factor s were then rotated to a final solution using both orthogonal (varimax) and oblique (promax) rotations; the promax rotation provided the more interpretable solution. The results of this analys is are displayed in Table 4. Factor loadings greater than .35 are underlined. The factor pattern in the current sample did not match the subscales London (1993b) identified. For example, the item Are involved in your job loaded comparably on two factors.

PAGE 50

40 By contrast, the item Are willing to take risks (actions with uncertain outcomes) along with two others, did not load highly on any factor. Moreover, several items did not load in the patterns London identified. Two items related to career goals, for example, were intended to describe career insight, along with items describing knowledge of strengths and weaknesses. As shown in Table 4, this was not the pattern exhibited in the current sample. A number of comparable factor analyses were then performed, deleting various items. Four items in particular, underlined in Table 4, were problematic in the current sample. The two items related to career goals, both intended to measure career insight, and two items from the career identity subscale (professional/technical expert and define self by work) were subsequently removed from the analysis. Factor loadings greater than .35 are underlined. Table 4. Factor Loadings for Original Career Motivation Subscales. Item Factor I Factor II Factor III Recognize what you can do well and cannot do well 81 -.15 .10 Know your strengths (the things you do well) 72 -.01 .07 Know your weaknesses (the things you are not good at ) 69 -.01 .00 Are able to adapt to changing circumstances 38 .20 .07 See yourself as a professiona l and/or technical expert 37 .26 .02 Can handle any work problems that come your way 36 .25 .05 Are willing to take risks (actions with uncertain outcomes) .34 .33 -.24 Have clear career goals .14 74 -.01 Have realistic career goals .13 60 .07 Work as hard as you can, even if it means working long days and weekends -.14 40 .24 Look forward to working with new, different people .16 35 -.02 Welcome job, organizational changes (e.g., new assignments) .26 .34 .01 Define yourself by your work -.06 .24 .06 Are proud to work for your organization .06 -.00 .85 Are loyal to your employer .06 -.01 75 Are involved in your job -.14 44 48 Believe your success depends on your employer's succes s .03 .09 43 Note. Underlined items were exclud ed in the final subscales. Table 5 displays the rotated factor pattern of the analysis performed excluding these four items. The remaining items all load on their appropr iate factors with loadings (underlined) greater than .37. Furthermore, each item loads highly only on the correct factor. Factor I included items designed to assess career identity, Factor II incl uded items measuring career insight, and the items loading on Factor III measure career resilience. The internal consistency of the identity, insight, and resilience scales in the current sample are .75, .81, and .68 respectively. Hypotheses were tested with these revised subscales.

PAGE 51

41 Table 5. Factor Loadings for Final Career Motivation Subscales. Item Factor I Factor II Factor III Are proud to work for your organization 85 .11 -.11 Are loyal to your employer 74 .11 -.10 Are involved in your job 63 -.15 .17 Believe your success depends on your employer's success 44 .03 .02 Work as hard as you can, even if it means working long days and weekends 38 -.16 .22 Recognize what you can do well and cannot do well .01 84 .02 Know your weaknesses (the things you are not good at ) -.01 72 .04 Know your strengths (the things you do well) .02 69 .11 Welcome job, organizational changes (e.g., new assignments) .11 -.01 71 Are willing to take risks (actions with uncertain outcomes) -.14 .11 51 Are able to adapt to changing circumstances -.04 .16 48 Can handle any work problems that come your way .12 .15 45 Look forward to working with new, different people .10 -.01 40 Note. Final scales exclude following items: See yourself as a professional a nd/or technical expert Have clear career goals Have realistic career goals Define yourself by your work Career Stage. Participants completed the Adult Ca reer Concerns Inventory, which was used to determine career stage (Super, Zelkowitz, & Thompson, 1981). The 60-item instrument includes 15 potential career concerns for each of four career stages. Sample items for the stages include: exploration "Clarifying my ideas about the type of work I would really enjoy," establishment "Achieving stability in my occupation," maintenance "Keeping in tune with the people I work with," and disengagement "Developing more hobbies to supplement work interests." Participants responded to the caree r concerns using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Have not yet had to think seriously about it ) to 3 (A strong concern at the present time; actively engaged in this) to 5 (No longer a con cern; past that stage). Validity for the scale has been demonstrated by a number of authors (e.g., Super & Kidd, 1979) and alpha coefficients have been reported for the stages ranging from .83 to .96 (Cron & Slocum, 1986; Ornstein & Isabella, 1990; Smart, 1998; Smart & Peterson, 1997). Validity coefficients for the four scales in the current sample ranged from .93 to .95. To determine the current career stage for pa rticipants, responses to the 15 items in each stage were averaged. The stage with the average that was closest to 3 was designated as the current career stage and participants were cate gorized accordingly. For 26 respondents, the averages for two or more of the career stages were equal and or equidistant from 3 (e.g., 2.75,

PAGE 52

42 3.25). Other researchers using the scale have faced similar classification difficulties (Cron, personal communication, Aug. 21, 2001). For t hose 26 cases, responses to the individual items were visually inspected to determine if the av erage resulted from a large number of 3 ratings or, for example, from a series of 2 and 4 ratings. Par ticipants were classified into one of the two equal stages if the number of 3 ratings was greater in one stage than the other. Using this procedure, a career stage was designated for 19 of these cases. A current stage could not be accurately determined for 8 participants; tho se cases were excluded from subsequent analyses. Perceptions of Career Plateau. Participants completed two perceptions of career plateau scales adapted from Milliman (1992) that were me asured using six-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). One scal e assessed their perceptions of job content plateau (e.g., My job responsibilities have increased significantly.) Previous studies using this measure have reported internal consistency reliabilities of .84 an d .83 (Allen et al., 1998; 1999). The internal consistency reliability in the current study measured .87. The other six-item scale measured participants' perceptions of hierarchical plateau (e.g., I am unlikely to obtain a much higher job title in my organization.) Allen and her colleagues (Allen et al., 1998; 1999) have reported internal consistency reliabilities of .85 an d .81 with this scale. Th e internal consistency in this study measured .92. Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Williams and Andersons (1991) measure of OCB was completed, which includes three factors of performance: IRB (In-role behavior), OCBI (OCB directed at individuals) and OCBO (OCB directed at the organization). In-role behaviors, or behaviors that are part of the formal job requirements, were included to isolate OCB variance that is not associated with defined job requirements. The motivation for citizenship behaviors directed toward individuals (OCBI) may vary depending on whether the recipient is a supervis or or co-worker. Individuals, for example, may help co-workers in response to group norms but help a supervisor to obtain career-related objectives. It seemed important, therefore, to dis tinguish those two recipient groups. Accordingly, two items from the OCBI subscale were modified and the items repeated to differentiate citizenship behaviors directed toward co-workers and supervisors. For example, the OCBI item "Helps others who have been absent" was changed to "Helps co-workers who have been absent" and the item "Helps his/her supervisor when he/s he has been absent" was added. Similarly, the item "Passes along information to co-workers" was repeated in the form of "Passes along information to supervisors." The final OCBI scal e consisted of nine items, three of which were directed at co-workers, three targeted to superv isors, and three more general items. Both the IRB

PAGE 53

43 (e.g., "Adequately completes assigned duties") a nd the OCBO (e.g., "Gives advance notice when unable to come to work") subscales included seven items. Williams and Anderson reported internal consistency reliabilities of .91, .88, a nd .75 respectively for the IRB, OCBI, and OCBO subscales. Although the IRB items were included in the survey, they were not relevant to the current study and were excluded from the analyses and hypotheses testing. An iterated principal axis factor analysis, sp ecifying two factors, with an oblique rotation was performed on the 16 citizenship items. As can be seen in Table 6, one item from the OCBO subscale (i.e., Conserves organizational property) did not load well on either factor. In addition, the loading for the negatively worded OCBO item, Complains about insignificant things at work, was relatively low. Factor load ings greater than .30 are underlined. Table 6. Factor Loadings of Items in Original OCB Scales. Item Factor I Factor II Help supervisor when he/she absent .66 -.05 Help others with heavy workloads .65 -.05 Pass along information to supervisor 62 .12 Help co-workers who have been absent 59 -.10 Go out of your way to help new employees 58 .03 Pass along information to co-workers 57 .10 Assist supervisor with work (when not asked) 56 -.02 Take a personal interest in other employees 56 -.11 Listen to co-workers problems or worries 54 -.03 Adheres to informal rules to maintain order 39 .28 Conserves organization property .26 .21 Take undeserved work breaks -.13 80 A great deal of time spent on personal phone calls -.04 50 Gives advance notice when unable to come to work .25 37 Attendance at work is above the norm .31 37 Complain about insignificant things at work -.08 .30 Note. Indicates negatively worded items These two questionable items were excluded and the remaining items were reanalyzed, again specifying two factors. Results of this second analysis were less, rather than more, interpretable. When these two items were remove d, the remaining OCBI items split between the two factors while the OCBO items did not load on either. To examine the relationships among the items more closely, a series of exploratory iterated principal axis factor analyses was perfo rmed with the resulting factors subjected to oblique rotations. Items that either did not load on any factor or loaded on more than one were removed, and the remaining items were reanalyzed The most interpretable results from this series

PAGE 54

44 of analyses consistently suggested that the thr ee negatively worded items should be excluded and that the remaining 13 items represent three, rather than two, factors. The final rotated pattern and factor loadings are presented in Table 7. The loadings on the respective factors, underlined in the table, are all .38 or higher. Based on the results, participants appeared to distinguish between c itizenship behaviors directed toward individuals. Contrary to expectation, the results do not s uggest a distinction between behaviors directed toward supervisors and coworkers. The first fact or (OCBI-DIRECT) includes four items directed at helping both coworkers and supervisors. This factor could be described as personal helping. Although the behaviors are still directed towa rd individuals, factor II (OCBI-INDIRECT), represents more indirect or less personal citizen ship behaviors (e.g., Listen to and Pass along information to coworkers, Help new employees etc). The final factor subsumes those behaviors directed more generally toward the organizati on, or OCBO. Note, however, that passing along information to a supervisor was perceived as a citizenship behavior directed toward the organization, rather than toward an individual. Table 7. Factor Loadings of Citizenship Items in Final OCB Scales. Item Factor I Factor II Factor III Help others with heavy workloads 76 .09 -.05 Help supervisor when he/she absent 76 -.08 .16 Help co-workers who have been absent 70 .13 -.10 Assist supervisor with work (when not asked) 63 -.04 .12 Take a personal interest in other employees -.03 91 -.16 Listen to co-workers problems or worries .19 63 -.14 Pass along information to co-workers -.16 63 .36 Go out of your way to help new employees .14 52 .13 Adheres to informal rules to main tain order .07 .00 54 Attendance at work is above the norm .00 -.01 47 Gives advance notice when unable to come to work .04 -.14 46 Pass along information to supervisor .08 .35 43 Conserves organization property -.01 .09 38 Note. Results excluding the 3 negatively worded items Procedure Participants were asked to provide demographic data and complete instruments measuring their job involvement, career motivation, occupational commitment, career stage, perceptions of career plateau, and OCB. To full y test the hypotheses and eliminate same source bias, select data were also needed from a participants immediate supervisor and one coworker, or

PAGE 55

45 both. These ancillary participants were asked to report information on their relationship to the participant and to evaluate the participan t's inrole and citizenship performance. The Corporation Participants from the Corporation were solic ited via email and completed the surveys in an on-line format. To reduce the chance that survey participa tion would disrupt business, the Corporation stipulated that contact would be limited to the initial solicitation and two reminder emails. In addition, the Corporation specified that the initial solicitation should take place over the end of year holiday season. A web designer developed a secure web site containing the three surveys. Response data were accumulated in a file on a server that w as monitored and controlled by the web designer. After development of the site, approximately 25 i ndividuals pilot tested the site and the process, final modifications were made, and the pilo t data were removed from the database. The Corporation was unwilling to send a cover notice to participants encouraging their participation. The researcher therefore sent a gl obal email from within the Corporation asking all employees to participate (Appendix E). The email included the site password and directed participants to point their Internet browsers to the website address. After logging onto the site, participants were asked to create a confidential usercode that was used to link data from the participant with the data from hi s/her supervisor and coworker. Pa rticipants were asked to read and accept the Informed Consent, and enter the na mes and email addresses of their supervisor and one coworker. After completing this process, th ey were automatically linked to the page containing the participant survey (Appendix B). Th e system prompted participants for answers to all items to ensure complete data. Once the participant submitted his/her survey responses, the system automatically generated emails (Appendix E) to the named supervisor and coworker requesting their evaluative responses. The emails included the participan ts name and the web address containing the supervisor or coworker survey The participants usercode w as included in the web address to link the data from all sources. Reminder emails were sent approximately tw o and four weeks after the initial email request (Appendix E). The first reminder was in the form of a global email to all employees. Because response rates were low, the second reminde r was sent in the form of an individually addressed email to each employee by name, to increase the likelihood of participation. The linked data from all respondents were accumulated in a database on a secure server and forwarded to the researcher at the completion of the data collection process.

PAGE 56

46 The University Operational factors precluded data collecti on from University employees by means of an online survey. As mentioned previously, some University employees did not have email, the email format was not consistent for all employees, and the Human Resources Department was unable to provide email addresses for all employees. As a result, data were collected from this group by means of paper documents. Although the University was not willing to generate an introductory letter to the employees encouraging participation, the Univers ity did compile and present the researcher a list of approximately 14,000 employee names including their respective job classifications, and campus mailing addresses. The researcher eliminated the employees in job classes that seemed inappropriate for the survey (e.g., part time in structors, maintenance and construction workers, laborers, etc.) and focused on employees working in office positions (clerical, administrative assistants, accountants, associate professors, gra duate research assistants etc.). From those classes, 1000 names were selected by convenience to receive surveys. The researcher prepared a packet of materi als for each participant that included: a participants survey, one each of the coworker and supervisor su rveys, cover letters to accompany the surveys explaining the study purpose and requesting participation (Appendix F), informed consent forms, and self-addressed stamped envelope s for all three surveys. Participants were asked to sign the informed consent, complete the first survey and distribute the other materials to their immediate supervisors and a coworker. Th e materials in each packet were numerically coded to link the returned responses. The survey for each coworker and supervisor included the name of the respective participant on a removable label. They were instructed to evaluate the person named on the label, remove the label, a nd return the survey to the researchers home address in the enclosed envelope. The packets were sealed and address labels were placed on the outside including the participants name and University mail addr ess. The packets were boxed and mailed to the Human Resource Department of the University where they were distributed via campus mail. The researcher received approximately 15 pairs of da ta from a coworker and supervisor for which no participant response was received. Hand written notes were sent to those participants asking them to complete their surveys. It was cost prohib itive, because of the size of the sample, to send reminder letters to all those who did not respond.

PAGE 57

47 Analyses Preliminary Analyses Scale Construction Where appropriate, individual items on the various scales were reverse scored and averaged scale scores were computed. The positively worded items on the hierarchical plateau scale were reverse scored so that higher scores indicated higher perceptions of being plateaud. Career Stage The career stage variable was coded and analyzed in two ways. Participants were assigned to one of the four car eer stages, as described previously and the four stages were coded temporally. That is, exploratio n was coded 1, establishment 2, maintenance 3, and disengagement 4, creating an ordinal scale for correlation with the other study variables. The fourth hypothesis proposed stronger relationships between the career variables and OCB in the two mid career stages (establishment and mainte nance) than in the first and last stages (exploration and disengagement). To test this hypothesis, the four stages were subsequently combined into two and dummy coded. Participan ts in the exploration and disengagement stages were pooled into a boundary stage that was c oded 1; participants in the establishment and maintenance stages were aggregated into a primary stage that was coded -1. Coworker Ratings Coworker and supervisor responses totaled 167 and 135 respectively. Complete sets of matched data, however (i.e., a pa rticipant, one coworker and one supervisor), were obtained for only 99 participants including both the Corporate and University samples. This was not a large enough sample to provide power for testing hypotheses. Because both coworkers and supervisors could be categorized as cowork ers, the proposed analyses were modified to include data from either a coworker or a supervisor, creating a more viable sample size. To make use of all the data, and to increase the reliability of the results (Allen, Barnard, Rush & Russell, 2000), the coworker and supervisor responses were averaged into one coworker rating when available. The intraclass correlations (ICC; Shr out & Fleiss, 1979) of coworker and supervisor ratings of, respectively, OCBI-DIRECT, OCBI-INDIRECT, OCBO are .48, .67, and 70. Subsequent analyses included either the coworker or supervisor rating (whichever was available) or an average of the two. Hypotheses Testing The first three hypotheses were tested by exam ining the zero order correlations between job involvement, career motivation, occupationa l commitment and the three OCB dimensions.

PAGE 58

48 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were al so conducted to determine which of the careerfocused variables contributed meaningf ully to the prediction of OCB. Hypotheses 4 and 5 were tested through a series of moderated regression analyses for each of the two rating sources. First the ratings were separately regressed onto each the three predictor variables (job involvement, career motivation, or occupational commitment) and then on the respective moderator variable (career stage or plateau perceptions). Finally, the interaction terms were entered into the equations. A significant interacti on term indicated a moderated relationship between the respective variables. Two separate series of regression analyses were performed to test hypothesis 5, one for job content plateau and one for hierarchical plateau perceptions. In both cases, plateau perceptions served as the potential moderating variable.

PAGE 59

49 Results Preliminary Analyses A multivariate analysis of variance was perfo rmed to test the assumption that participant and coworker ratings of citizenship behavior s were independent. In a one-way multivariate analysis of variance, ratings of the three OCB scales were the dependent variables and the rating source (participant and coworker) was the independe nt variable. The means, standard deviations and results of this analysis are displayed in Table 8. The overall MANOVA was significant, Wilks = .98, F (3, 459) = 6.74, p < .001, indicating differences existed between the ratings. Univariate ANOVAs showed that participant m ean ratings of OCBO were significantly higher than coworker ratings. No differences were found between participant and coworker mean ratings of OCBI-DIRECT or OCBI-INDIRECT. Table 8. Means, Standard Deviations, and MANOVA Results for Participant and Coworker Ratings of OCB. Manova Wilks = .98, F (3, 459) = 6.74, p < .001 OCB Scale Ratings Mean Standard Deviation F OCBI DIRECT Participant 3.40 a .88 3.52 Coworker 3.25 a .80 OCBI INDIRECT Participant 3.78 a .74 .29 Coworker 3.74 a .80 OCBO Participant 3.97 a .62 17.48*** Coworker 3.74 b .56. Note. Significant mean differences, using Tukeys HSD, are indicated by subscripts with different letters p < .0001 A Multitrait-Multirater matrix of OCB ratings was then examined using Campbell and Fiskes (1959) four criteria. The four criteria ar e 1.) the values on the validity diagonal should be significantly different from zero and large enough to warrant further investigation, 2.) the values

PAGE 60

50 on the validity diagonal should be larger th an their corresponding heterotrait-heteromethod coefficients, 3.) the coefficients in the validit y diagonal should be larger than the respective values in the monomethod triangles, and 4.) the correlational patterns should be the same among the heterotrait-heteromethod blocks and the monomethod triangles. The first criterion is used to demonstrate convergent validity; the last three are used to demonstrate discriminant validity and the absence of method (rater) effects. Table 9. Multitrait-Multirater Matrix for Ratings of OCB. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Part OCBI-DIRECT (.82) 2. Part OCBI-INDIR. .42** (.79) 3. Part OCBO .36** .43** (61) 4. Cowrk-OCBI-DIRECT .13 .03 .12 (.72) 5. Cowrk-OCBI-INDIR. .13 .14* .15* .70** (.86) 6. Cowrk-OCBO .05 -.07 .18* .65** .51** (.61) Mean 3.40 3.78 3.97 3.25 3.74 3.74 Standard Deviation .88 .74 .62 .80 .80 .56 p < .05 ** p < .01 The multitrait-multirater matrix is displayed in Table 9; scale reliabilities are in parentheses, values on the validity diagonal are underlined. As seen in the table, there is modest convergent validity as two of the three coefficients on the validity diagonal are significantly larger than zero, and the third approaches signifi cance. These values are also equal to or larger than most of the heterotrait-heteromethod values. The correlation of coworker ratings of OCBIINDIRECT and participant ratings of OCBO is, however, larger than two of the values in the validity diagonal. There is no support for Campbell and Fiskes (1959) third and fourth criteria. The values on the validity diagonal are uniformly and considerably smaller than the values in both of the monomethod triangles and the pattern of correlations was not the same across the matrix. Failure to meet the last three criteria suggests a lack of discriminant validity and the presence of substantial method variance, particularly among coworker ratings. The descriptive statistics for the study variables are presented in Table 10. Table 11 displays the zero-order correlations between the variables. The hypotheses were tested using a statistical significance level of .05.

PAGE 61

51 Table 10. Descriptive Statistics of Survey Variables. Variable # of Likert N Mean SD Min Max Alpha Items Scale Job Involvement 7 6 260 2.87 .97 1.00 5.70 .85 Occupational Commitment 11 6 260 4.22 1.08 1.20 6.00 .93 Job Content Plateau 6 6 260 2.74 1.03 1.00 6.00 .87 Hierarchical Plateau 6 6 259 3.98 1.25 1.00 6.00 .91 Career Identity 5 5 260 3.70 .73 1.40 5.00 .75 Career Insight 3 5 260 3.99 .71 2.00 5.00 .81 Career Resilience 5 5 260 3.86 .57 2.20 5.00 .68 Exploration 15 5 261 3.64 .93 1.20 5.00 .95 Establish 15 5 261 3.56 .87 1.10 5.00 .94 Maintain 15 5 261 3.18 .90 1.00 5.00 .94 Disengage 15 5 260 2.16 .84 1.00 4.90 .93 OCBI-DIRECT (Participant) 4 5 260 3.40 .88 1.00 6.20 .82 OCBI-INDIRECT (Participant) 4 5 260 3.78 .74 1.50 5.00 .79 OCBO (Participant) 5 5 260 3.97 .62 2.20 5.00 .61 OCBI-DIRECT (Coworker) 4 5 203 3.25 .80 1.00 5.33 .72 OCBI-INDIRECT (Coworker) 4 5 203 3.74 .80 1.25 5.78 .86 OCBO (Coworker) 5 5 203 3.74 .56 2.00 5.00 .61 Note N for Coworker data includes individual and averaged coworker and supervisor responses

PAGE 62

52 Table 11. Zero Order Correlations of all Study Variables. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Age 2. Gender -.07 3. Education -.04 -.17** 4. Job Involvement .02 -.16** .23** 5. Occupational Commitment .05 -.08 .34** .49** 6. Job Content Plateau -.05 .17** -.25** -.36** -.59** 7. Hierarchical Plateau .28** .10 -.11 -.15* -.38** .35** 8. Resilience .17* .01 -.01 .10 .09 -.02 .01 9. Identity .21** .01 .01 .35** .40** -.39** -.12 .22** 10. Insight .24** -.01 .01 -.01 .06 -.02 .07 .36** .20** 11. Career Stage .55** .01 .11 .11 .31** -.19** .04 .24** .21** .27** 12. OCBI-DIRECT (Participant) .17** .07 -.16** -.07 -.05 -.02 .07 .17** .18** .16** 13. OCBI-INDIRECT (Participant) .06 .06 -.06 06 .07 -.16** .05 .21** .11 .14* 14. OCBO (Participant) .18** .11 .02 .11 .12* -.19** -.02 .17** .29** .17** 15. OCBI-DIRECT (Coworker) .03 .14* -.27** -.05 -.07 -.01 .02 .01 .07 -.01 16. OCBI-INDIRECT (Coworker) .04 .11 -.14* .01 -.02 -.01 -.03 .07 .02 .01 17. OCBO (Coworker) .15* .19** -.16* .01 -.01 .03 .04 .02 .11 .03

PAGE 63

53 Table 11 (Continued) Variable 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 _____ 11. Career Stage 12. OCBI-Direct (Participant) .08 13. OCBI-Indirect (Participant) .08 .42** 14. OCBO (Participant) .16** .36** .43** 15. OCBI-Direct (Coworker) -.05 .13 .03 .12 16. OCBI-Indirect (Coworker) .07 .12 .14* .15* .70** 17. OCBO (Coworker) .04 .05 -.07 .18** .65** .51** Note. Gender: Male = 1, Female = 2 N=200-260 p <.05 ** p <.01

PAGE 64

54 Hypotheses Testing Zero Order Correlations The first hypothesis concerned the potentia l relationships between levels of job involvement and ratings of OCB. Higher ratings of OCB were predicted for participants who rated themselves higher on job involvement. As di splayed in Table 10, participants who rated themselves higher on job involvement did not rate themselves higher on OCBI-DIRECT ( r = .07, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT ( r = .06, n.s.) or OCBO ( r = .11, n.s.). Similarly, coworkers did not rate participants who reported higher levels of job involvement as showing higher levels of OCBI-DIRECT ( r = -.05, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT ( r = .01, n.s.) or OCBO ( r = .01, n.s.). The first hypothesis was not supported. The second hypothesis argued that participants who rated themselves higher on the career motivation scales would report and receive higher ratings on citizenship be haviors. Hypothesis 2 was generally supported for participant ra tings, although not for coworker ratings. More specifically, participants reporting higher le vels of career resilience also rated themselves higher on OCBI-DIRECT and INDIRECT ( r = .17, p < .01, r = .21, p < .01) and on OCBO ( r = .17, p < .01). Coworkers did not, however, rate tho se reporting higher levels of resilience as performing higher levels of OCBI-DIRECT ( r = .01, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT ( r = .07, n.s.), or OCBO ( r = .02, n.s.). Note in Table 10 that a simila r pattern of results was observed with regard to career insight. Participants who rated themselves higher on career insight also rated themselves higher on OCBI-DIRECT ( r = .16, p < .01), OCBI-INDIRECT ( r = .14, p < .05) and OCBO ( r = .17, p < .01). As mentioned previously, the prediction for coworker ratings of citizenship behaviors was not supported. That is, participan ts that rated themselves higher on career insight did not receive correspondingly higher ratings from their coworkers on OCBI-DIRECT ( r = -.01, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT ( r = .01, n.s.), or OCBO ( r = .03, n.s.). The responses for career identity, the final car eer motivation indicator, were consistent with the responses of the previous two. Higher self-ratings on career identity were associated with higher selfratings on OCBI-DIRECT (r = .18, p < .01) and on OCBO ( r = .29, p < .01). The relationship between participant ratings on identity and OCBI-INDIRECT failed to reach significance ( r = .11, n.s.). Participants who indicated higher levels of career identity did not receive higher ratings from coworkers on OCBI-DIRECT (r = .07, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT ( r = .02, n.s.), and OCBO ( r = .11, n.s.).

PAGE 65

55 Hypothesis 3, which suggested a positive correlation between ratings of occupational commitment and ratings of OCB, was partially su pported. The correlations in Table 10 show that participants who reported higher levels of occupational commitment did not rate themselves higher on OCBI-DIRECT ( r = -.05, n.s.) or OCBI-INDIRECT ( r = .07, n.s.). They did, however, report higher levels of OCBO ( r = .12, p < .05). There was no relationship between self-ratings of occupational commitment and cowo rker ratings on OCBI-DIRECT ( r = -.07, n.s.), OCBIINDIRECT ( r = -.02, n.s.), or OCBO ( r = -.01, n.s.). Regression Analyses Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to investigate the contribution of each of the career variables to the prediction of citizenship behaviors. Organization was coded (University = 1, Corporation= 2) and entered into the analy ses as a control variable because differences could exist between participants b ased on the organizations for which they were employed. In the first step, organization was ente red alone; in the second step organization and all of the career variables were entered. OCBI-DIRECT. The organization and the career focused variables accounted for 12% of the variance in the performance of OCBI-DIRECT ( F (9, 247) = 3.88, p = .0001). Individually, the organization for which partic ipants were employed ( t (247) = -2.91, p < .01) and self-reported career identity ( t (247) = 2.65, p < .01) were significant predictors. Further details of these analyses are shown in Table 12. Table 12. Regression of Participant Ratings of OCBI-DIRECT on Organization and the Career Variables. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b Step One Overall F = 11.98, p < .001 .04 Organization -1.51 .44 -.21 Step Two Overall F = 3.88, p < .0001 .08* F = 2.75, p < .01 Organization -1.27 .44 -.18** Job Involvement -.04 .04 -.09 Occupational Commitment -.04 .02 -.15 Content Plateau -.04 .04 -.06 Hierarchical Plateau .02 .03 .05 Resilience .16 .08 .13 Insight .10 .11 .06 Identity .18 .07 .19** Career Stage -.03 .21 -.01 Note. a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation

PAGE 66

56 p < .05 ** p < .01 The analyses of coworker ratings of OCBI DIRECT are displayed in Table 13. Although organization and the career variables collectively r esulted in a significant model, the addition of the career variables did not add to the predicti on of the ratings beyond that which was provided with organization alone ( R 2 = .02 F = .48, n.s.). Table 13. Regression of Coworker Ratings of OCBI-DIRECT on Organization and the Career Variables. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b Step One Overall F = 18.35, p < .0001 .09 Organization -.47 .11 -.30 Step Two Overall F = 2.43, p < .05 .02 F = .48, n.s. Organization -.47 .12 -.30*** Job Involvement -.01 .01 -.04 Occupational Commitment -.01 .01 -.10 Content Plateau -.01 .01 -.09 Hierarchical Plateau 00 .01 .01 Resilience .01 .02 .02 Insight -.03 .03 -.09 Identity .01 .02 .06 Career Stage .03 .06 .04 Note. a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation p < .05 ** p < .01 OCBI-INDIRECT. As displayed in Table 14, organization and the career variables explained a significant amount of variance in participant ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT ( F (9, 247) = 2.55, p < .01). Individual predictors included par ticipant perceptions of job content plateau (t (247) = -2.73, p < .01) and by their mean ratings of career resilience ( t (247) = 2.77, p < .01).

PAGE 67

57 Table 14. Regression of Participant Ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT on Organization and the Career Variables. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b Step One Overall F = .04, n.s. .00 Organization -.07 .38 -.01 Step Two Overall F = 2.55, p <. 01 08* F = 2.75, p < .01 Organization .03 .38 .00 Job Involvement -.02 .03 -.04 Occupational Commitment .01 .02 .00 Content Plateau -.10 .04 -.22** Hierarchical Plateau .05 .03 .12 Resilience .19 .07 .19** Insight .09 .09 .06 Identity .01 .06 .02 Career Stage -.09 .18 .03 Note. a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation p < .05 ** p < .01 As shown in Table 15, the organization a nd the career variables reliably predicted coworker ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT (F (9, 184) = 2.29, p < .05). The career variables did not add appreciably to the prediction, however ( R 2 =.01 F = .48, n.s.), beyond variance that was explained by organization alone. Table 15. Regression of Coworker Ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT on Organization and the Career Variables. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b Step One Overall F = 18.60, p < .0001 .09 Organization -.46 .11 -.30 Step Two Overall F = 2.29, p < .05 .01 F = .48, n.s. Organization -.48 .12 -.31*** Job Involvement .00 .01 -.01 Occupational Commitment .00 .01 -.06 Content Plateau -.01 .01 -.08 Hierarchical Plateau .00 .01 -.02 Resilience .02 .02 .08 Insight -.02 .03 -.05 Identity .00 .02 -.04 Career Stage .02 .06 .03 Note. a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation p < .05

PAGE 68

58 ** p < .01 OCBO Nearly 12% of the variance in participant self-reports of OCBO was accounted for with organization and the career variables in the equation ( F (9, 247) = 3.95, p = .0001). As displayed in Table 16, both job content plateau ( t (247) = -2.12, p < .05) and career identity (t (247) = 2.99, p < .01) were significant predictors of OCBO. Table 16. Regression of Participant Ratings of OC BO on Organization and the Career Variables. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b Step One Overall F = 1.83, n.s. .01 Organization -.07 .38 -.01 Step Two Overall F = 3.95, p <.0001 .12* F = 3.75, p < .01 Organization -.25 .38 -.04 Job Involvement .00 .03 -.01 Occupational Commitment -.02 .02 -.06 Content Plateau -.08 .04 -.16* Hierarchical Plateau .01 .03 .03 Resilience .09 .07 .08 Insight .13 .09 .09 Identity .18 .06 .21** Career Stage .16 .19 .06 Note. a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation p < .05 ** p < .01 Approximately 16% of the variance in cowork er ratings of OCBO was accounted for by the organization for which they wo rked and the career variables ( F (9, 184) = 3.89, p < .01. Further details of the analyses are presented in Table 17. Similar to the results obtained when analyzing other coworker ratings, however, the career variables did not explain incremental variance beyond that which was accounted for by the organization alone ( R 2 =.02, F = .67, n.s.).

PAGE 69

59 Table 17. Regression of Coworker Ratings of OCBO on Organization and the Career Variables. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b Step One Overall F = 30.07, p < .0001 .14 Organization -.41 .07 -.37 Step Two Overall F = 3.89, p <.01 .02 F = .67, n.s. Organization -.40 .08 -.36*** Job Involvement .00 .01 .02 Occupational Commitment .00 .00 .00 Content Plateau .00 .01 .03 Hierarchical Plateau .00 .01 .05 Resilience .00 .01 .00 Insight -.02 .02 -.07 Identity .02 .01 .11 Career Stage .06 .04 .10 Note. a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation p < .05 ** p < .01 Moderator Analyses Hypotheses four and five suggested that the relationships between the career focused variables and the performance of citizenship beha viors may be moderated by participants career stage and their perceptions regarding their career plateaus, respectively. A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses was performed to test these hypotheses. The results of the moderated analyses are presented next. Hypothesis 4 proposed that there would be a stronger relationship between the career variables and OCB for participants in the establishment and maintenance career stages than for those in the exploration and disengagement stages. To perform these analyses, participants in the exploration and disengagement stages were pooled into a boundary stage (1); those in the establishment and maintenance stages were comb ined into a primary stage (-1) and the two aggregated stages were dummy coded. The change in R 2 regression weights, standard errors, and the standardized regression weights for these an alyses are presented in Tables 18 through 27. Job Involvement. The fourth hypothesis was not supported for job involvement. As shown in Table 18, participant career stage di d not influence the relationship between their reports of job involvement and th eir self-ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .30, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = 1.25, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .08, n.s.).

PAGE 70

60 Table 18. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationshi p between Job Involvement and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .40, n.s. Job Involvement .00 -.03 .03 -.06 Career Stage .00 .42 .71 .12 Job Involvement Career Stage .00 -.02 .03 -.11 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .23, n.s. Job Involvement .00 .02 .03 .05 Career Stage .00 .17 .58 .06 Job Involvement Career Stage .00 -.01 .03 -.07 OCBO Overall F = 1.70, n.s. Job Involvement .02 .06 .03 .14 Career Stage .00 .35 .61 .11 Job Involvement Career Stage .00 -.01 .03 -.06 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01 The hypothesized results were obtained, howev er, when coworker ratings were analyzed. That is, participant career stage did moderate th e relationship between participant ratings of job involvement and coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .04, F = 7.02, p < .01.), OCBIINDIRECT, ( R 2 = .06, F = 11.18, p < .01), and OCBO ( R 2 = .04, F = 6.60, p < .01). Table 19 illustrates the details of these analyses.

PAGE 71

61 Table 19. Career Stage as Moderator of Relations hip between Job Involvement and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 2.74, p < .05 Job Involvement .00 -.01 .01 -.05 Career Stage .00 -.41 .18 -.51* Job Involvement Career Stage .04 .02 .01 .60** OCBI-INDIRECT Overa ll F = 3.84, p < .05 Job Involvement .00 .00 .01 .00 Career Stage .00 -.53 .18 -.66** Job Involvement Career Stage .06 .03 .01 .74** OCBO Overall F = 3.13 p < .05 Job Involvement .00 .00 .01 .03 Career Stage .01 -.24 .13 -.43 Job Involvement Career Stage .04 .02 .01 .58* Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01 To examine the nature of these interactions more fully, data from the primary and boundary career stages were divided and separ ate regressions were computed for the three measures of OCB for each stage (Brannick, 2004, p.8). The results of the first analyses are presented graphically in Figure 4. Examination of the simple slopes suggests that, for the boundary career stage, there is virtually no rela tionship between job involvement and coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT (B = .14). As hypothesized, a significant positive relationship between job involvement and coworker ratings of OCB I-DIRECT was shown, however, for employees in the primary career stage (B = .23).

PAGE 72

22.533.544.5512345Job InvolvementOCBI-Direc t Primary Stage Boundary Stage Figure 4. Moderated regression of career stage and job involvement on coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT. As shown in Figure 5, the pattern for coworker ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT is contrary to hypothesized results. The relationship between job involvement and OCBI-INDIRECT is positive and slightly stronger for the boundary (B = .25) stage than for the primary stage (B = .22). 22.533.544.5512345Job InvolvementOCBI-Indirec t Primary Stage Boundary Stage Figure 5. Moderated regression of career stage and job involvement on coworker ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT. 62

PAGE 73

Figure 6 displays the final moderated regression analyses, which are also contrary to the hypothesis. For those in the boundary career stage, job involvement is related to coworker ratings of OCBO (B=.22). There is no relationship, however, between self-reports of job involvement and coworker ratings of OCBO for those in the primary career stage (B = .15). The results were notable across the three OCB measures in that those in the primary career stage uniformly received higher ratings from coworkers than those in the boundary career stage. 22.533.544.5512345Job InvolvementOCBO Primary Stage Boundary Stage Figure 6. Moderated regression of career stage and job involvement on coworker ratings of OCBO. 63

PAGE 74

64 Occupational Commitment Table 20 includes the key information for the analysis of occupational commitment. Self-reports of career st age did not moderate the relationship between mean levels of occupational commitment a nd participant ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .00, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .38, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .01, F = 3.54, p < .05). Table 20. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Occupational Commitment and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .44, n.s. Occupational Commitment .01 -.02 .02 -.07 Career Stage .00 -.01 .93 .00 Occup. Commit. Career Stage .00 .00 .02 .00 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .45, n.s. Occupational Commitment .00 .02 .02 .07 Career Stage .00 .43 .77 .15 Occup. Commit. Career Stage .00 -.01 .02 -.16 OCBO Overall F = 2.68, p < .05 Occupational Commitment .02 .04 .02 .15 Career Stage .00 1.62 .79 .53 Occup. Commit. Career Stage .01 -.03 .02 -.49 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 75

65 Nor was the hypothesis supported when analyzing coworker ratings. As shown in Table 21, participants career stage did not influen ce the relationship between their levels of occupational commitment and cowork er evaluations of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .11, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .01, F = .60, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .20, n.s.). Table 21. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Occupational Commitment and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .45, n.s. Occupational Commitment .01 .00 .00 -.06 Career Stage .00 -.03 .23 -.04 Occup. Commit. Career Stage .00 .00 .00 .10 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .34, n.s. Occupational Commitment .00 .00 .00 -.03 Career Stage .00 -.14 .23 -.18 Occup. Commit. Career Stage .01 .00 .00 .22 OCBO Overall F = .90, n.s. Occupational Commitment .00 .00 .00 .02 Career Stage .01 .14 .16 .24 Occup. Commit. Career Stage .00 .00 .00 -.13 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 76

66 Career Resilience Participant ratings of career stage did not influence the relationship between self-reports of career resilience and self-reports of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .01, F = 3.28, p < .05), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .62, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .31, n.s.). Further details of the analyses are exhibited in Table 22. Table 22. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Career Resilience and SelfReports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 3.87, p < .01 Career Resilience 03 .24 .08 .20** Career Stage .00 2.70 1.50 .77 Career Resilience* Career Stage .01 -.14 .08 -.76 OCBI-INDIRECT Overa ll F = 3.35, p < .05 Career Resilience 04 .18 .06 .18** Career Stage .00 -1.03 1.23 -.35 Career Resilience* Career Stag e .00 .05 .06 .33 OCBO Overall F = 2.85, p < .05 Career Resilience .03 .18 .07 .17 Career Stage .00 -.62 1.30 -.21 Career Resilience* Career Stag e .00 .04 .07 .25 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 77

67 The analyses of coworker ratings of OCB also failed to support the hypothesis. Career stage did not influence the relationship between se lf-reports of career resilience and the ratings coworkers provided for OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .87 n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .70, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .01, F = 2.05, n.s.). Table 23 highlights the details of the analyses. Table 23. Career Stage as Moderator of Relations hip between Career Resilience and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .64, n.s. Career Resilience .00 .01 .02 .03 Career Stage .01 .43 .40 .54 Career Resilience* Career Stage .00 -.02 .02 -.47 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .70, n.s. Career Resilience .01 .02 .02 .06 Career Stage .00 -.30 .40 -.37 Career Resilience* Career Stag e .00 .02 .02 .42 OCBO Overall F = 1.63, n.s. Career Resilience .00 .01 .01 .05 Career Stage .01 .47 .28 .83 Career Resilience* Career Stage .01 -.02 .01 -.72 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 78

68 Career Insight Hypothesis 4 was not supported for the career insight variable. As shown in Table 24, career stage did not moderate the association between career insight and participant ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .05, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .00, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .10, n.s.). Table 24. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationship between Career Insight and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 2.59, n.s. Career Insight .03 .29 .10 .17 Career Stage .00 -.18 1.26 .05 Career Insight* Career Stage .00 .02 .10 .08 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = 1.82, n.s. Career Insight .02 .20 .09 .14 Career Stage .00 -.14 1.05 -.05 Career Insight* Career Stage .00 .01 .09 .03 OCBO Overall F = 3.87 p < .01 Career Insight .04 .30 .09 .21** Career Stage .00 .45 1.08 .15 Career Insight* Career Stage .00 -.03 .09 -.11 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 79

69 Nor was the proposed relationship found when analyzing coworker ratings. As shown in Table 25, career stage did not influence the rela tionship between participant ratings of career insight and coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .00, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .01, F = 1.36, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .02, n.s.). Table 25. Career Stage as Moderator of Relations hip between Career Insight and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .33, n.s. Career Insight .00 .00 .03 -.01 Career Stage .01 .08 .32 .10 Career Insight* Career Stage .00 .00 .03 -.03 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .61, n.s. Career Insight .00 .00 .03 .01 Career Stage .00 -.34 .33 -.43 Career Insight* Career Stage .01 03 .03 .48 OCBO Overall F = .94, n.s. Career Insight .00 .01 .02 .03 Career Stage .01 .10 .23 .17 Career Insight* Career Stage .00 .00 .02 -.05 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 80

70 Career Identity Career stage did not moderate th e relationship between self-reported career identity and OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .01, F = 2.00, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .01, F = 1.22, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .03 n.s.). The highlights of these analyses are displayed in Table 26. Table 26. Career Stage as Moderator of Relationshi p between Career Identity and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 3.67, p < .05 Career Identity .03 .13 .07 .14 Career Stage .00 .14 .23 .04 Career Identity Career Stage .01 .00 .00 .10 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = 1.92, n.s. Career Identity .02 .08 .06 .09 Career Stage .00 -.01 .19 .00 Career Identity Career Stage .00 .00 .00 .08 OCBO Overall F = 8.30, p < .0001 Career Identity .08 .26 .06 .31*** Career Stage .01 .33 .19 .11 Career Identity* Career Stage .00 .00 .00 -.01 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

PAGE 81

71 Coworker ratings provided similar results. Ta ble 27 presents the details of the analyses. Career stage did not moderate the relationship be tween participant reports of career identity and the evaluations coworkers provided for OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .00, n.s.), OCBIINDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .15, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .12, n.s.). Table 27. Career Stage as Moderator of Relati onship between Career Identity and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .79, n.s. Career Identity .00 .02 .02 .08 Career Stage .01 .08 .06 .09 Career Identity Career Stage .00 .00 .00 .00 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .33, n.s. Career Identity .00 .01 .02 .05 Career Stage .00 .05 .06 .07 Career Identity Career Stage .00 .00 .00 -.03 OCBO Overall F = 2.61, n.s. Career Identity .01 .02 .01 .14 Career Stage .03 .09 .04 .15* Career Identity* Career Stage .00 .00 .00 .03 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01 To summarize, there was little evidence to support the fourth hypothesis with the majority of the career variables. Career stage did, however, moderate the relationship between participant ratings of job involvement and cowo rker ratings of all three measures of OCB. The fifth and final hypothesis suggested that perceptions of career plateau would moderate the potential relationship between the career variables and ratings of citizenship behaviors. More specifically, it was hypothesized that the relationships between job involvement, occupational commitment, and career motivati on and OCB would be stronger for those who reported lower perceptions of career plateau than for those who reported higher perceptions of career plateau. Ratings of both job content plateau and hierarchical plateau were examined for potential moderating effects. The change in R2, regression weights, standard errors, and the standardized regression weights for these analyses are presented in Tables 28 through 47.

PAGE 82

72 Job Involvment Table 28 displays the details for the job involvement analyses. The extent that participants viewed themselves as job content plateaued did not moderate the relationship between job involvement and their ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .05, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .08, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .34, n.s.). Table 28. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Re lationship between Job Involvement and SelfReports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .57, n.s. Job Involvement .00 -.02 .09 -.05 Job Content Plateau .00 .00 .10 .00 Job Involvement Job Content Plateau .00 .00 .01 -.05 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = 2.36, n.s. Job Involvement .00 .01 .07 .03 Job Content Plateau .00 -.06 .08 -.12 Job Involvement Job Content Plateau .00 .00 .00 -.05 OCBO Overall F =4.00, p < .01 Job Involvement .01 .05 .08 .12 Job Content Plateau .03 -.05 .09 -.10 Job Involvement Job Content Plateau .00 .00 .00 -.11 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 83

73 As indicated in Table 29, similar results we re found when coworker ratings of OCB were analyzed. In particular, participant perceptions of job content plateau did not moderate the association between job involvement and coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .30, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .02, F = 3.80, p < .05.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .00, n.s.). Table 29. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Job Involvement and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .50, n.s. Job Involvement .01 -.02 .02 -.18 Job Content Plateau .00 -.02 .03 -.15 Job Involvement Job Content Plateau .00 .00 .00 .11 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = 1.45, n.s. Job Involvement .00 -.05* .02 -.39* Job Content Plateau .00 -.05* .02 -.40* Job Involvement Job Content Plateau .02 .00 .01 .41 OCBO Overall F = .02, n.s. Job Involvement .00 -.00 .02 -.02 Job Content Plateau .00 -.00 .02 -.00 Job Involvement Job Content Plateau .00 .00 .00 .01 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 84

74 Table 30 highlights the results for the ratings of hierarchical plateau. As indicated, the extent that participants reported that they we re hierarchically plateaud did not influence the relationship between their reports of job invol vement and their ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .79, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .00, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .33, n.s.). Table 30. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Re lationship between Job Involvement and SelfReports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 1.06, n.s. Job Involvement .01 .07 .11 .12 Hierarchical Plateau .00 .11 .09 .23 Job Involvement Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.00 .00 -.24 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F =.55, n.s. Job Involvement .00 .03 .10 .06 Hierarchical Plateau .00 .03 .08 .06 Job Involvement Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.00 .00 -.00 OCBO Overall F = 1.01, n.s. Job Involvement .01 .11 .10 .22 Hierarchical Plateau .00 .04 .08 .11 Job Involvement Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.00 .00 -.15 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 85

75 Coworker evaluations paralleled the evalua tions provided by participants. Table 31 presents the highlights of the analyses. There were no moderating effects found for hierarchical plateau on the association between job involvement levels and coworker ratings of OCBIDIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .02, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = 1.00, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .06, n.s.). Table 31. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Job Involvement and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .28, n.s. Job Involvement .00 -.01 .03 -.09 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.00 .02 -.02 Job Involvement Hierarchical Plateau .00 .00 .00 .03 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .15, n.s. Job Involvement .00 -.01 .03 -.11 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.01 .02 -.11 Job Involvement Hierarchical Plateau .00 .00 .00 -.10 OCBO Overall F = .15, n.s. Job Involvement .00 .00 .02 .06 Hierarchical Plateau .00 .00 .02 .10 Job Involvement Hierarchical Plateau .00 .00 .00 -.09 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 86

76 Occupational Commitment Participant perceptions of the extent that they felt job content plateaud did not exert a moderating influence on the relationship between self-reports of occupational commitment and OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .82, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .55, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = 2.21, n.s.). The details of the analyses are displayed in Table 32. Table 32. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Re lationship between Occupational Commitment and SelfReports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .73, n.s. Occupational Commitment .00 -.05 .05 -.18 Job Content Plateau .00 -.09 .12 -.16 Occup. Commit. Job Content Plateau .00 .00 .00 .08 OCBI-INDIRECT Overa ll F = 2.54, n.s. Occupational Commitment .01 -.03 .04 -.14 Job Content Plateau .00 -.16 .10 -.32 Occup. Commit Job Content Plateau .00 -.00 .00 .13 OCBO Overall F -= 4.62 p <.01 Occupational Commitment .02 .07 .05 .20 Job Content Plateau .02 .05 .10 .10 Occup. Commit. Job Content Plateau .01 -.00 .00 -.26 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 87

77 Moreover, the results for coworker ratings of OCB matched the ratings provided by participants. As shown in Table 33, the extent that participants felt they lacked challenge in their jobs did not influence the relationship between their reports of occupational commitment and coworker evaluations of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .01, F = 1.92, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .03, F = 5.26, p < 01.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .36, n.s.). Table 33. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Re lationship between Occupational Commitment and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 1.10, n.s. Occupational Commitment .00 -.02 .01 -.35 Job Content Plateau .01 -.05 .03 -.38 Occup. Commit. Job Content Plateau .01 .00 .00 .28 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = 1.86, n.s. Occupational Commitment .00 -.03 .01 -.44* Job Content Plateau .00 -.07 .03 -.55* Occup. Commit Job Content Plateau .03 .00 .00 .45* OCBO Overall F = .12, n.s. Occupational Commitment .00 -.00 .01 -.09 Job Content Plateau .00 -.01 .02 -.10 Occup. Commit. Job Content Plateau .00 .00 .00 .11 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 88

78 Participant reports regarding hierarchical plateaus did not modify the relationship between self-reports of commitment to their occupation and OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .02, F = 3.85, p < .05.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .03, F = .80, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .02, F = 3.35., p < .05). The highlights of the results are reported in Table 34. Table 34. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Re lationship between Occupational Commitment and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 3.00, p < .05 Occupational Commitment .00 .16 .07 .55* Hierarchical Plateau .01 .36 .13 .54 Occup. Commit Hierarchical Pl ateau .02 -.01 .10 -.53 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = 1.54, n.s. Occupational Commitment .006 .08 .06 .32 Hierarchical Plateau .01 .14 .11 .34 Occup. Commit. Hierarchical Plateau .03 -.00 .00 -.26 OCBO Overall F = 2.81, p < .05 Occupational Commitment .01 .15 .06 .56* Hierarchical Plateau .00 .22 .11 .54 Occup. Commit. Hierarchical Pl ateau .02 -.00 .00 -.53 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 89

79 No support was found for hypothesis five as it relates to coworker ratings. As shown in Table 35, participant ratings of hierarchical pl ateau did not influence the relationship between their ratings of occupational commitment and coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .01, F = .98, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = 1.04, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .16, n.s.). Table 35. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Re lationship between Occupational Commitment and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .54, n.s. Occupational Commitment .00 -.02 .02 -.32 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.03 .03 -.31 Occup. Commit Hierarchical Pl ateau .01 .00 .00 .32 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .42, n.s. Occupational Commitment .00 -.02 .02 -.28 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.04 .03 -.35 Occup. Commit. Hierarchical Pl ateau .00 .00 .00 .33 OCBO Overall F =.19, n.s. Occupational Commitment .00 -.00 .01 -.09 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.00 .02 -.08 Occup. Commit. Hierarchical Pl ateau .00 .00 .00 .13 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 90

80 Career Resilience Contrary to hypothesized results, job content plateau did not moderate the correlation between career resilience and citizensh ip behaviors. The results, as shown in Table 36, are consistent for participant ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .1.32, n.s.), OCBIINDIRECT, ( R 2 = .01, F = 1.33, n.s.), and OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .41, n.s.). Table 36. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Re lationship between Career Resilience and SelfReports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 3.01, p < ,05 Career Resilience 03 .45* .22 .37* Job Content Plateau .00 .28 .24 .49 Career Resilience Job Content Plateau .00 -.01 .01 -.52 OCBI-INDIRECT Overall F = 6.47, p < .001 Career Resilience .04 .01 .18 .01 Job Content Plateau .02 -.31 .20 -.64 Career Resilience Job Content Plateau .01 .01 .01 .52 OCBO Overall F = 6.44, p < .001 Career Resilience .03 .06 .19 .06 Job Content Plateau .04 -.23 .21 -.47 Career Resilience Job Content Pl ateau .00 .01 .01 .29 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 91

81 Table 37 presents similar results for coworker ratings of OCB. Specifically, the extent that participants reported they were job cont ent plateaued did not influence the relationship between self-reports of career resilience and coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .01, F = .64, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .20, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .1, F = 2.76, n.s.). Table 37. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Resilience and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .54, n.s. Career Resilience .00 .07 .06 .25 Job Content Plateau .00 .07 .06 .57 Career Resilience Job Content Plateau .01 .00 .00 -.63 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = 50, n.s. Career Resilience .01 .04 .06 .16 Job Content Plateau .00 .02 .06 .17 Career Resilience Job Content Plateau .00 .00 .00 -.22 OCBO Overall F =.96, n.s. Career Resilience .00 .07 .04 .34 Job Content Plateau .00 .07 .04 .81 Career Resilience Job Content Plateau .01 .00 .00 -.85 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 92

82 The results of the next moderator analyses are similar to those previously reported. As shown in Table 38, the extent that participants reported they had been plateaued hierarchically did not influence the association between their self-reports of resilience and OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .00, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .40, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .24, n.s.). Table 38. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Resilience and Self-Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 3.09, p < .05 Career Resilience .03 .21 .28 .17 Hierarchical Plateau .01 .04 .21 .08 Career Resilience Hierarchical Plateau .00 .00 -.01 .00 OCBI-INDIRECT Overa ll F = 4.05, p < .01 Career Resilience .04 .06 .24 .06 Hierarchical Plateau .01 -.09 .18 -.23 Career Resilience Hierarchical Plateau .00 .00 -.01 .32 OCBO Overall F = 2.56, n.s. Career Resilience .03 .07 .25 .06 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.09 .19 -.23 Career Resilience Hierarchical Pl ateau .00 .00 .01 .24 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 93

83 The findings from the analyses using coworker evaluations also failed to support the hypothesis. Participant ratings of hierarchical plateaus did not modify the relationship between their ratings of career resilience and coworker reports of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .00, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .00, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .01, F = .92, n.s.). These results are documented in Table 39. Table 39. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Resilience and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .02, n.s. Career Resilience .00 .00 .08 .01 Hierarchical Plateau .00 .00 .06 .01 Career Resilience Hierarchical Pl ateau .00 .00 .00 .01 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .44, n.s. Career Resilience .00 .01 .07 .05 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.01 .05 -.09 Career Resilience Hierarchical Plateau .00 .00 .00 .06 OCBO Overall F = .45, n.s. Career Resilience .00 .05 .05 .27 Hierarchical Plateau .00 .04 .04 .54 Career Resilience Hierarchical Pl ateau .01 .00 .01 -.56 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 94

84 Career Insight Table 40 displays the results of the moderator analyses for job content plateau and career insight. Participant reports rega rding job content plateaus did not moderate the relationship between their ratings of career insight and their self-reports of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .08, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .01, F = .2.58, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .95, n.s.). Table 40. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Re lationship between Career Insight and SelfReports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 2.29, n.s Career Insight .03 .35 .29 .21 Job Content Plateau .00 .06 .20 .11 Career Insight Job Content Plat eau .00 -.00 .02 -.12 OCBI-INDIRECT Overa ll F = 4.72, p < .01 Career Insight .02 -.18 .24 -.13 Job Content Plateau .02 -.34* .16 -.70* Career Insight Job Content Plateau .01 .02 .01 .61 OCBO Overall F = 6.84, p < .01 Career Insight .03 .02 .25 .02 Job Content Plateau .04 -.26 .17 -.53 Career Insight Job Content Plateau .00 .01 .01 .36 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 95

85 As indicated in Table 41, no moderating eff ects were found for self-reports of job content plateau on the relationship between career insight and coworker evaluations of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .01, F = 1.48, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .40, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .01, F = 1.14, n.s.). The results do not support the hypothesis. Table 41. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Insight and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .51, n.s. Career Insight .00 .08 .08 .23 Job Content Plateau .00 .06 .05 .44 Career Insight Job Content Plat eau .01 -.01 .00 -.51 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .22, n.s. Career Insight .00 -.04 .07 -.10 Job Content Plateau .00 -.03 .05 -.27 Career Insight Job Content Plateau .00 .00 .00 .27 OCBO Overall F .49, n.s. Career Insight .00 .06 .05 .24 Job Content Plateau .00 .04 .04 .42 Career Insight Job Content Plat eau .01 -.00 .00 -.45 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 96

86 There was no evidence that mean ratings of hierarchical plateau influenced the correlation between participant reports of career insight and their reports of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .01, F = 2.04, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .31, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .42, n.s.). The highlights of the analyses are presented in Table 42. Table 42. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Insight and SelfReports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 3.36, p < .05 Career Insight .02 -.22 .35 -.13 Hierarchical Plateau .01 -.20 .16 -.43 Career Insight Hierarchical Pl ateau .01 .02 .01 .60 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = 1.89, n.s. Career Insight .02 .03 .29 .02 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.06 .14 -.14 Career Insight Hierarchical Pl ateau .00 .00 .01 .23 OCBO Overall F = 2.89, p < .05 Career Insight .03 .07 .30 .05 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.10 .14 -.25 Career Insight Hierarchical Pl ateau .00 .01 .01 .27 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 97

87 Comparable results were found for coworker ra tings of citizenship behaviors. As shown in Table 43, levels of hierarchical plateau did not moderate the association between career insight, as reported by participants and OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .61, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .01, F = 1.36, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .04, n.s.) as reported by coworkers. Table 43. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Insight and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .22, n.s. Career Insight .00 -.06 .09 -.18 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.03 .04 -.29 Career Insight Hierarchical Pl ateau .00 .00 .00 .37 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .32, n.s. Career Insight .00 -.09 .09 -.24 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.05 .04 -.48 Career Insight Hierarchical Pl ateau .01 .00 .00 .54 OCBO Overall F = .23, n.s. Career Insight .00 -.00 .06 -.01 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.00 .03 -.04 Career Insight Hierarchical Pl ateau .00 .00 .00 .10 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 98

88 Career Identity Analyses involving the final component of career motivation failed to support the hypothesized results. Additional inform ation is presented in Table 44. Participant ratings of job content plateau did not influence the relationship between their ratings of career identity and any of the three forms of ci tizenship behavior (i.e., OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .00, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .18, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .18, n.s.)). Table 44. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Re lationship between Ca reer Identity and SelfReports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 3.19, p < .05 Career Identity .03 .19 .17 .20 Job Content Plateau .01 .04 .16 .07 Career Identity Job Content Plat eau .00 .00 .01 .01 OCBI-INDIRECT Overa ll F = 2.57, p < .05 Career Identity .01 -.00 .14 -.02 Job Content Plateau .02 -.12 .13 -.25 Career Identity Job Content Plateau .00 00 .01 .11 OCBO Overall F = 8.87, p < .001 Career Identity .08 .26 .14 .30 Job Content Plateau .01 -.01 .14 -.02 Career Identity Job Content Plateau .00 -.00 .01 -.09 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 99

89 Results for ratings provided by coworkers followed a similar pattern. That is, no moderating influences were found for job conten t plateau on the association between self reported ratings of career identity and coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .04, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .36, F = .04, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .14, n.s.). Table 45 presents the details of the analyses. Table 45. Job Content Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Identity and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .33, n.s. Career Identity .01 .01 .04 .05 Job Content Plateau .00 -.00 .04 -.04 Career Identity Job Content Plat eau .00 .00 .00 .04 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .20, n.s. Career Identity .00 -.02 .04 -.08 Job Content Plateau .00 -.03 .04 -.20 Career Identity Job Content Plateau .00 .00 .00 .17 OCBO Overall F = 1.22, n.s. Career Identity .01 .03 .03 .21 Job Content Plateau .01 .02 .03 .19 Career Identity Job Content Plateau .00 -.00 .00 -.11 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 100

90 The final analyses looked for moderating eff ects of hierarchical plateau ratings on the correlation between participant ratings of career id entity and OCB. As indicated in Table 46, no significant results were found in the analyses for self-ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .00, F = .03, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .00, F = .00, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .00, F = .00, n.s.). Table 46. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Re lationship between Career Identity and SelfReports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = 3.60 p < .05 Career Identity .03 .21 .21 .21 Hierarchical Plateau .01 .07 .16 .14 Career Identity Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.00 .01 -.05 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = 1.55, n.s. Career Identity .01 .11 .18 .14 Hierarchical Plateau .01 .04 .13 .10 Career Identity Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.00 .01 -.03 OCBO Overall F = 7.77, p < .001 Career Identity .08 .23 .18 .27 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.01 .13 -.01 Career Identity Hierarchical Pl ateau .00 .00 .01 .03 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 101

91 As the details presented in Table 47 indicat e, hierarchical plateau ratings did not moderate the relationship between participant reports of career identity and coworker reports of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .01, F = .40, n.s.), OCBI-INDIRECT, ( R 2 = .01, F = 1.00, n.s.), or OCBO ( R 2 = .01, F = .20, n.s.). Table 47. Hierarchical Plateau as Moderator of Relationship between Career Identity and Coworker Reports of Citizenship Behaviors. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b OCBI-DIRECT Overall F = .49, n.s. Career Identity .00 -.02 .06 -.08 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.02 .04 -.22 Career Identity Hierarchical Pl ateau .01 .00 .00 .27 OCBI-INDIRECT Over all F = .43, n.s. Career Identity .00 -.05 .05 -.22 Hierarchical Plateau .00 -.04 .04 -.40 Career Identity Hierarchical Pl ateau .01 .00 .00 .42 OCBO Overall F = 1.19, n.s. Career Identity .01 .04 .04 .23 Hierarchical Plateau .00 .02 .03 .22 Career Identity Hierarchical Plateau .01 -.00 .00 -.19 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation including variables and interaction term p < .05 ** p < .01 To summarize, there was limite d evidence to support either hypothesis 4 or 5. Neither the aggregated career stage nor the two indices of career plateau had a moderating influence on the relationships between the career focused variables and participant ratings of OCB. Career stage did moderate the relationship be tween job involvement and coworker ratings of citizenship behavior, no other coworker ratings supported the hypotheses Post Hoc Analyses Because previous hypotheses were analyzed using data from two organizational sources, it seemed useful to determine whether the results were influenced by the sample from which the data were obtained. Accordingly, the same series of moderated regression analyses were performed with the addition of organization as a control variable. Results of the separate moderator analyses matched results from the combined analyses with one exception. When analyzing data from each organization, neither career stage nor job plateaus moderated the relationships between the career focused va riables and any of the ratings of OCB.

PAGE 102

92 Although not the major focus of the study, it seemed reasonable to presume that participant education, and job a nd/or organizational tenure could influence ratings of citizenship behaviors. It would also be useful to determ ine the incremental value of the career variables beyond that contributed by the demographics. To examine these issues, a series of hierarchical regression analyses was performed in which the ratin gs of citizenship beha vior were regressed on the participant demographic variables. Organizati on was coded (University = 1, Corporation = 2) and entered into the analyses to control for differences resulting from the respective work environments. In the first step, organization w as entered alone; in the second step organization and the demographic variables were entered. Finally, the career variables were added to determine if they added predictive power over and above the organization and demographics. Those results are presented in the next section.

PAGE 103

93 Demographics and Tenure OCBI-DIRECT Participant demographics and tenure accounted for 6% of the variance in the performance of OCBI-DIRECT (F(6, 240), = 4.49, p < .001), in addition to that which was accounted for by the organization. Table 48 presen ts the details of the analysis. Within the predictor group, in addition to organiza tion, participant level of education ( t (240) = -2.06, p < .05) job tenure ( t (240) = 2.93, p < .01), and organizational tenure ( t (240) = -2.47, p < .05) were significant individual predictors. The addition of the career variables in the third step did not appreciably increase the amount of variance explained ( R 2 = .05, F = 1.86, n.s). Table 48. Regression of Participant Ratings of OCBI-DIRECT on Demographic and Career Variables. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b Step One Overall F = 10.36, p < .01 .04 Organization -1.44 .45 -.20** Step Two Overall F = 4.49, p < .001 .06,* F = 3.00, p < .05 Organization -1.14 .45 -.16* Education -.31 .15 -.13* Gender .32 .47 .04 Job Tenure .16 .06 .24** Occupational Tenure .04 .03 .11 Organizational Tenure -.12 .05 -.23* Step Three Overall F = 3.06, p < .001 .05, F = 1.86, n.s. Organization -1.06 .46 -.15* Education -.26 .16 -.11 Gender .20 .47 .03 Job Tenure .14 .06 .20* Occupational Tenure .02 .03 .05 Organizational Tenure -.13 .05 -.25* Job Involvement -.02 .04 -.04 Occupational Commitment -.03 .03 -.10 Content Plateau -.02 .05 -.03 Hierarchical Plateau .02 .03 .04 Resilience .09 .08 .07 Identity .19 .07 .20** Insight .12 .11 .08 Career Stage .03 .24 .01 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 104

94 Table 49 displays the details of the analyses for coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT. The organization and the demographic variables were si gnificant predictors of coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT ( F (6, 184) = 5.06, p < .0001), explaining 14% of the variance. Organization (t (184) = -3.58, p < .01) and education ( t (184) = -2.59, p < .05) were significant individual predictors. The addition of the career variables to the equation did not add appreciably to the prediction of OCBI-DIRECT ( R 2 = .02, F = .40, n.s.). Table 49. Regression of Coworker Ratings of OCBI-DIRECT on Demographic and Career Variables. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b Step One Overall F = 20.33, p < .0001 .10 Organization -.48 .10 -.31** Step Two Overall F = 5.06, p < .0001 .04,* F = 2.75, p < .05 Organization -.43 .11 -.26*** Education -.10 .04 -.19 Gender .13 .12 .08 Job Tenure .00 .01 .03 Occupational Tenure .00 .01 .03 Organizational Tenure .00 .01 -.03 Step Three Overall F = 2.45, p < .01 .02, F = .40, n.s. Organization -.38 .12 -.25** Education -.10 .04 -.20* Gender .16 .12 .10 Job Tenure .00 .01 .03 Occupational Tenure .01 .01 .06 Organizational Tenure .00 .01 -.03 Job Involvement .00 .01 -.05 Occupational Commitment .00 .01 -.02 Content Plateau -.02 .01 -.12 Hierarchical Plateau .00 .01 -.04 Resilience .00 .02 .01 Identity .00 .02 .04 Insight -.02 .03 -.05 Career Stage -.03 .06 -.05 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

PAGE 105

95 OCBI-INDIRECT Participant demographics and tenure variables did not predict selfratings of OCBI-INDIRECT ( F (6, 240) = 1.44, n.s.). Table 50 displays the details of the analyses. The overall model was significant when the career variables were included in the equation (F (14, 232) = 1.91, p < .05), however, explaining an additional 7% of the variance. Perceptions of job content plateau was the only reliable predictor ( t (232) = -2.65, p < .01) in the equation. Table 50. Regression of Participant Ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT on Demographic and Career Variables. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b Step One Overall F = 0.02, n.s. .00 Organization .05 .38 .01 Step Two Overall F = 1.44, n.s. .03, F = 1.75, n.s. Organization .24 .39 .04 Education -.14 .13 -.07 Gender .27 .40 .04 Job Tenure .08 .05 .13 Occupational Tenure .05 .03 .17* Organizational Tenure -.07 .04 -.18* Step Three Overall F = 1.91, p < .05 .07,* F = 2.25, p < .05. Organization .29 .40 .05 Education -.24 .14 -.12 Gender .35 .40 .06 Job Tenure .05 .05 .09 Occupational Tenure .03 .03 .09 Organizational Tenure -.07 .04 -.17 Job Involvement .01 .03 -.02 Occupational Commitment .01 .02 .03 Content Plateau -.10 .04 -.22** Hierarchical Plateau .04 .03 .11 Resilience .12 .07 .12* Identity .04 .06 .05 Insight .10 .09 .07 Career Stage -.11 .21 -.04 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 106

96 Table 51 shows the highlights of the hierar chical regression of coworker ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT on the demographic and career vari ables. Only the organization for which the participants worked was a significant predictor of OCBI-INDIRECT ( F (1, 195), = 24.71, p < .0001.), explaining 10% of the variance in co worker ratings. Neither the addition of the demographic variables ( R 2 = 01, F = .40, n.s.) nor the career variables ( R 2 = 01, F = .40, n.s.) reliably increased the amount of explained variance. Table 51. Regression of Coworker Ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT on Demographic and Career Variables. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b Step One Overall F = 24.71, p < .0001 .10 Organization -.49 .11 -.32*** Step Two Overall F = 3.95, p = .001 .01 F = .40, n.s. Organization -.46 .11 -.30*** Education -.05 .04 -.09 Gender .03 .12 .02 Job Tenure -.01 .01 -.06 Occupational Tenure .00 .01 .06 Organizational Tenure .00 .01 .00 Step Three Overall F = 2.00, p < .01 .02 F = .60, n.s. Organization -.45 .12 -.30*** Education -.05 .04 -.09 Gender .07 .12 .04 Job Tenure -.01 .01 -.08 Occupational Tenure .00 .01 .02 Organizational Tenure .00 .01 .04 Job Involvement .00 .01 -.03 Occupational Commitment .00 .01 -.05 Content Plateau -.01 .01 -.12 Hierarchical Plateau -.01 .01 -.06 Resilience .02 .02 .09 Identity -.01 .02 -.04 Insight -.01 .03 -.04 Career Stage .05 .06 .07 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

PAGE 107

97 OCBO Participant ratings of OCBO were relia bly predicted by a combination of the organization, demographic, and tenure variables ( F (6, 240), = 2.31, p < .05), accounting for 6% of the variance in OCBO. Table 52 presents the de tails of the analysis. Within that predictor group, occupational tenure ( t (240) = 2.34, p < .05) was a significant predictor. An extra 10% of variance was explained when the career variabl es were subsequently added to the equation (F = 3.00, p < .05). In the full model, participant gender ( t (232) = 2.05, p < .05), job content plateau (t (232) = -1.95, p < .05), and career identity ( t (232) = 2.54, p < .05) were reliable individual predictors. Table 52. Regression of Participant Ratings of OC BO on Demographic and Career Variables. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b Step One Overall F = 2.41, n.s. .01 Organization -.61 .39 -.10 Step Two Overall F = 2.31, p < .05 .05,* F = 2.25, p < .05 Organization -.41 .40 -.04 Education .11 .13 .05 Gender .70 .41 .11 Job Tenure .06 .05 .07 Occupational Tenure .06 .03 .18* Organizational Tenure -.01 .05 -.03 Step Three Overall F = 3.05, p < .001 .10*, F = 3.00, p < .05 Organization -.20 .40 -.03 Education .00 .14 .00 Gender .84 .41 .13* Job Tenure .04 .05 .06 Occupational Tenure .05 .03 .13 Organizational Tenure -.04 .04 -.10 Job Involvement .03 .03 .05 Occupational Commitment -.02 .02 -.07 Content Plateau -.08 .04 -.16* Hierarchical Plateau -.01 .03 -.03 Resilience .03 .07 .03 Identity .16 .06 .19** Insight .18 .10 .13 Career Stage .01 .21 .02 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 108

98 As displayed in Table 53, over 20% of the variance in coworker ratings of OCBO was explained by the organization and the demographic variables ( F (6,184) = 7.68, p < .0001). Both the participant organization ( t (184) = -4.66, p < .0001) and gender ( t (184) = 1.92, p < .05) were reliable individual predictors. The addition of the career variables did not add appreciably to the prediction of OCBO ( R 2 = .01, F = .25, n.s.). Table 53. Regression of Coworker Ratings of OCBO on Demographic and Career Variables. Variable R 2a B b SE B b b Step One Overall F = 32.67, p < .0001 .15 Organization -.44 .07 -.38*** Step Two Overall F = 7.68, p < .0001 .05,* F = 2.29, p < .05 Organization -.36 .08 -.33*** Education -.02 .03 -.05 Gender .16 .08 .13* Job Tenure .00 .01 .04 Occupational Tenure .00 .01 .01 Organizational Tenure .01 .01 .14 Step Three Overall F = 3.33, p < .0001 .01, F = .25, n.s. Organization -.36 .08 -.32*** Education -.02 .03 -.04 Gender .16 .08 .13 Job Tenure .01 .01 .07 Occupational Tenure .00 .01 .04 Organizational Tenure .01 .01 .14 Job Involvement .00 .01 -.01 Occupational Commitment .00 .00 -.02 Content Plateau .00 .01 .01 Hierarchical Plateau .00 .01 -.03 Resilience .01 .02 .03 Identity .01 .01 .04 Insight -.02 .02 -.06 Career Stage -.03 .04 -.07 Note a R 2 = amount of additional variance accounted for at each step b refers to the final regression equation p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 Research Question In addition to the hypotheses, analyses were also performed to determine whether the relationships between the career focused vari ables and OCB differed as a function of who was performing the ratings. To examine this issue, the correlations between the career focused variables and participant ratings of OCB were statistically compared with the correlations between the variables and coworker ratings of OCB. Because of limitations with sample size,

PAGE 109

99 ratings obtained from coworkers and supervisors had been combined, precluding an examination of the differences between those ratings. To complete these analyses, all relevant correla tion coefficients were first converted to zscores. The differences between the transformed coefficients were then tested for significance. For example, the difference between the correlati on of job involvement and coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT and job involvement and participant ratings of OCBI-DIRECT was obtained and tested. As displayed in Table 54, the relationship between career identity and participant ratings of OCBO ( r = .29, p < .01) was larger than the correlati on between career identify and coworker ratings of OCBO ( r = .11, n.s.), (z = 2.00, p < .05). There were no other reliable differences between the respective coefficients. Table 54. Z-scores from Comparisons between Rela tionships of Participant and Coworker Ratings of OCB and Career Focused Variables. Variable OCBI-DIRECT OCBI-INDIRECT OCBO Job Involvement .21 .53 1.05 Occupational Commitment .21 .53 1.16 Job Content Plateau .10 1.58 1.68 Hierarchical Plateau .53 .21 .21 Resilience 1.68 1.47 1.58 Identity 1.16 .95 2.00* Insight 1.58 1.37 1.48 Career Stage .32 .11 1.26 p < .05

PAGE 110

100 Discussion This study had two primary objectives. The fi rst was to propose a model of career-related factors that could influence the performance of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). The second was to determine whether the relationships between the career-focused variables and OCB differ as a function of the OCB rating source. Historical evidence suggests OCB is pred icted by job attitudes and personality. This research was predicated on the assumption that employees who are focused on their career may perform citizenship behaviors to gain valued career rewards. The work extends current knowledge regarding career management by pr oposing OCB as a viable career strategy. In addition, the work helps to extend our unders tanding of the motivations underlying, and the prediction of, OCB. Finally, several demographic va riables are identified as reliable predictors of OCB. The discussion is divided into several secti ons. The first section reviews the preliminary analyses that were performed. Next, the results of the hypotheses are discussed and the influence of moderators on the relationship between career variables and OCB is explored. The differences between ratings made by different sources are then reviewed. The final sections include a discussion of the theoretical and practical conclusions that might be drawn, a review of the limitations of the study, and provide suggestions for future research in the areas of careers and OCB. Hypotheses Testing Including both a priori and post hoc analyses, three of the five hypotheses were at least partially supported. The results provide valuable knowledge regarding both career development and OCB theory. Job Involvement Contrary to prediction, employees who were more involved in their jobs did not exhibit higher levels of citizenship behaviors. Comparab le results were found for both self and coworker ratings of citizenship behaviors. Participants w ho reported being involved in their jobs were also occupationally committed and much less likely to re port being job content and, to a lesser degree,

PAGE 111

101 hierarchically plateaued. This is not surprising given that Bardwick (1986) defined job content plateau to be the antithesis of job involvement. It is also consistent with results of research by Allen, Russell, Poteet, and Dobbins (1999). Participant involvement in their current jobs did not, however, translate behaviorally into OCB. There are a number of explanations for th ese findings. First, a participant may be involved in his/her current job because of its intrinsic va lue but may not desire greater responsibility or levels of authority. Given that, he/she may see no need to perform behaviors that could lead to those challenges. Alternatively, those who ar e highly involved in their jobs may not have sufficient time to perform behaviors that go above and beyond their normal job requirements. K. Horgen (personal communication, April, 2001) suggested that it would take much more energy to perform OCB in the current economic environmen t where fewer employees are being forced to perform more duties than in l ess competitive work environments. Under current circumstances, even career motivated employees may not have, or may not be willing to expend, the resources required to go beyond normal job duties. Moreover, in a consulting firm populated by hi ghly educated, independent producers, (the majority of the participant sample) there may be less need, or opportunity, than in other organizational settings, to exhibit the type of helping behaviors described in the Williams and Anderson (1991) measure. In the corporate e nvironment from which volunteers were drawn, items defining willingness to collaborate may more appropriately capture the essence of OCBI than items measuring willingness to help. Finally, to the extent that an organization is a competitive work environment, those who are invol ved in their jobs may view helping coworkers as a threat to their own progress and be less willing to help. Occupational Commitment As hypothesized, participants who describ ed themselves as more committed to their careers also rated themselves more highly on citizenship behaviors directed toward the organization (OCBO). Behaviors designed to facilitate organizational processes would be of direct benefit to the organization. Occupationall y committed individuals could profit in at least two ways by performing these behaviors, both of wh ich are congruent with the theory. First, by improving the efficiency of the organization for which they work, occupationally committed participants increase the likelihood that the organization will remain viable, thereby furthering their own organizational career. Second, employees c ould garner valued career goals if viewed by their supervisors as good citizens. A number of author s have found that supervisors rate extrarole

PAGE 112

102 behaviors comparable to inrole or task behavi ors when making overall performance ratings (e.g., Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995) The configuration of correlations between o ccupational commitment and the other career variables is intuitive and supportive of previous work. That is, participants who were more committed to their occupations were also more involved in their jobs and reported higher scores on career identity than those less committed to their occupations (Carson & Bedeian, 1994). Similar to results obtained by others, when compared to those reporting lower levels of commitment, they were also more highly educat ed, tended to be in the more advanced career stages and were less likely to have experienced car eer plateaus of either content or structure. Colarelli and Bishop, for example (1990), predicted and found that both age and education were positively related to career commitment in sa mples of MBAs and professional scientists. Those who described themselves as more occupationally committed did not rate themselves more highly than those less committed on either facet of OCBI. Nor did they receive higher coworker ratings of OCB. In contrast to OCBO, behaviors designed to assist other employees may not have the same perceived va lue for the occupationally committed employee. Going out of their way to listen to or help coworkers may require a greater resource commitment than occupationally focused employees are willing to make. Feldman and Weitz (1992) explored the characteristics of what they termed a careerist orientation to work, defined as the propensity to pursue career advancement through non-pe rformance-based means. (p.237) The authors argued that careerists develop pe rsonal relationships with colleagues at work for instrumental reasons. That is, while evidencing a team spirit, th ey are likely to help others only to the extent that others can help them further their own career. To the extent that the occupationally committed may also be careerist in orientation, that would account for the lack of relationship with OCBI. Moreover, committed employees may not see as clear a link between OCBI and their career goals as they perceive between OCBO and career goals. This hypothesis was partially supported. Although occupational commitment was rela ted to OCBO, it was not found to be a reliable individual predictor when OCBO was re gressed on the career variables. The variance occupational commitment shares with aspects of career motivation may help to explain those results. In his theory of career motivation, London (1983) outlined three domains as key predictors of OCB. Current evidence suggests a ll three components are related to the performance of citizenship behaviors.

PAGE 113

103 Career Identity London (1983) and London and Mone (1987) describe career identity as the directional component of career motivation including the centrality of the job and career in a persons life and the extent that he/she pursues advancem ent, recognition, and organizational objectives. Participants that reported high levels of career id entity also reported being involved in their jobs, committed to their occupations, tended to be in th e more advanced career stages, and were less likely to be job content plateaued than those reporting lower levels of identity. These findings support previous research in related areas (A llen, Russell, Poteet, & Dobbins, 1999, King, Ehrhard, & Parks, 1998). More central to this dissertation, however, participants that reported higher levels of career identity also rated themselves higher on OCBI-DIRECT and OCBO than those reporting lower levels of identity. Moreover, identity was also a significant predictor of self-reports of both forms, accounting for unique variance over and abov e the variance explained by the organization and demographic variables. In his original de velopment of citizenship behavior, Organ (1988) tied OCB conceptually to career identity. Althoug h the results are consistent with Londons (1983) original characterization of identity, they only partially support similar research. Carson and Carson (1998) found career identity, measured by what they termed career commitment, was related to the civic virtue dimension of OCB but did not relate to the altruism or helping dimension. Employees who define job and career as central components of their lives make conscious decisions to perform OCB to help ach ieve goals. Helping behaviors directed toward coworkers and supervisors can facilitate or ganizational functioning and demonstrate the employees job involvement and value to the work team. The performance of OCBO displays a willingness to invest in the success of the organization as a whole. For the employee with a defined career identity, engaging in citizenship behaviors could lead to career goal achievement. Alternatively, the results may show evidence of a citizenship identity. That is, employees may view themselves as good citizens and perform those behaviors to remain congruent with that role. Others have shown that individuals behave in ways desi gned to demonstrate consistency between their self-image and their behavior s (Baumeister, 1982, London 1983). Moreover, Penner and Finkelstein (1998) argued citizenship -type behaviors could be motivated by an attempt to maintain a prosocial role identity. Career identity, however, was not correlated with OCBI-INDIRECT. On first analysis, it appears as though a person who perform the behaviors described as OCBI-INDIRECT may exemplify the good guy, someone who goes out of his/her way for the new employee and

PAGE 114

104 listens to coworker concerns. The indirect behavi ors may be viewed as more of a career strategy than the more straightforward helping behavior s of OCBI-DIRECT, which may be more closely related to inrole performance. OCBI-INDIRECT may be a more optional form of extrarole behavior than OCBI-DIRECT, even for those who are career motivated. Although the two forms of OCBI certainly overlap, the pattern of re lationships suggests the division between OCBIDIRECT and INDIRECT is a viable distinction and a fruitful area for future research. It could be argued that the two forms of O CBI could also be characterized as representing two aspects of leadership: consideration and initiating structure. OCBI-DIRECT includes the helping behaviors that might be typical of a considerate leader. OCBI-INDIRECT, by contrast, is a less personal form of behavior that might be viewed as representing initiating structure (C. Nelson, personal communication, Jan. 14, 2005). The results may also suggest an equivocal view of OCBI-INDIRECT. The behaviors comprising OCBI-INDIRECT may, in certain situations, have ne gative organizational implications. Brief and Motowidlo (1986) suggest ed that extrarole behaviors could be either organizationally functional or dysf unctional. In the researchers current government work setting, many employees appear to undertake these theoretically helpful behaviors as a strategy to waste time and keep them from performing their required job duties. Stopping by other employees desks each morning to listen to prob lems or pass along the most recent information serve as quasi legitimate behaviors within the wo rkplace that, in this instance, actually reduce productivity. The current sample consists, in part, of government employees who may understand this negative view of these behaviors. From that perspective, the career motivated may actually decline to perform OCBI-INDIRECT for fear of negative ramifications. Career Insight Career insight has been described as the energizing aspect of career motivation (London, 1993). Insight is typified by the clarity of a persons knowledge regarding his/her strengths and weaknesses, the extent that a person has well-defi ned career goals, and his/her ability to use that knowledge to achieve those goals. The career be haviors London (1983) described as reflecting high levels of career insight include establishing career goals, identifying strategies to achieve those goals and working harder on projects that will affect ones career (p. 623). Results obtained in the study support the proposed hypothesis. That is, participants reporting higher levels of career insight were more likely than those reporting lower insight levels to perform all three forms of OCB. In part b ecause of their career and work experience, those with high insight may be more likely than those with low insight to recognize the instrumental

PAGE 115

105 value of OCB. Moreover, when compared to those with less self-knowledge or less clearly defined goals, those high in career insight are also more likely to make the personal investment involved to perform behaviors that go beyond role requirements. In the current sample, employees with high leve ls of insight were also older and in more advanced career stages than those reporting lowe r levels of insight. London (1993a) also found that insight was positively related to age. This presents the possibility that the relationship between insight and OCB may be a byproduct of the more advanced career stages. One of the tasks of employees in the maintenance and, to a lesser extent, the disengagement career stages, is to maintain performance levels and remain productive members of the workforce. Based on results from both a lab and field study, Allen and Rush (1998) proposed OCB may have the greatest influence on performance judgments when inrole performance is av erage. Viewed from that perspective, those with higher levels of insight may also perform OCB in an attempt to ameliorate societys stereotypes and biases toward older workers inrole performance (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994). This may also explain why, a lthough positively related to all forms of OCB, career insight does not uniquely predict any of th e three facets when combined with the other career variables. Career Resilience Resilience is characterized by the abilit y to welcome and adapt to changing circumstances and the perseverance to maintain high performance levels when confronted with situational and/or resource constraints. In this study, participants who rated themselves as highly resilient tended to be older and in more established career stages th an those with lower levels of resilience. Noe, Noe, and Bachhuber (1990) and others have found that those who were older and/or in the later stages of their careers were more resilient than those in early career stages (Carson & Bedeian, 1994, London, 1993a, London & Noe, 1997). King, Ehrhard, and Parks (1998) suggested the facets of career motivation evolve from identity to insight to resilience; a progressive development culminating over time in career commitment. As hypothesized, when compared to those re porting lower levels of resilience, those reporting higher levels were also more likely to perform all three forms of OCB. The results support similar work by Carson and Carson (1998) who found that high levels of career resilience were related to OCB, specifically Organs (1988) sportsmanship dimension. Moreover, resilience was also a significant individual predictor of self-ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT. In his original career motivation model, London (1983) argued that career motivation would be evidenced by the career decisions one makes and behaviors one performs. Moreover,

PAGE 116

106 the tenets of prospective rationality suggest that decisions and behaviors are directed by the desired outcomes and expectations for achievement (OReilly & Caldwell, 1981). The citizenship behaviors outlined in this study could be vi ewed and performed by the career motivated as optional activities undertaken with the expectation th at valued career benefits will result. The fact that the more resilient are also older suggests th at the career motivated may have learned through experience that positive outcomes can result from OCB. Potential Moderators In the current study, situational and contex tual factors were proposed to influence the relationships between the career focused variables and OCB. For example, career motivated employees who perceive they have reached a career plateau in their organization may perform lower levels of OCB that those who are not pl ateaued. In addition, employees who are exploring their career options or preparing for retirem ent may be less likely to perform OCB than employees who are struggling to establish themselv es or attempting to maintain their performance levels. No evidence was found for the existence of career plateau as a moderator and minimal evidence was found for career stage as a moderato r. Both career variables were shown to be related to OCB, however. A more detailed discussion of these findings is presented next. Hierarchical Plateau The most traditional view of career plateau has been the structural form. Employees who, for various reasons, had reached what was likely to be their highest level on the organization chart were defined as plateau ed. Recognizing that they were unlikely to receive positions with greater responsibility, employees were presumed to experience negative feelings and attitudes that could translate into negative consequences for their employers. Research in the area of career plateaus in genera l, and, more recently, structural plateaus has generally supported these contentions. In the current study, experiencing a structural or hierarchical plateau was not related to the behaviors of career focused employees. In fact, no relationship was found between hierachical plateaus and OCB. This is a positive finding for organizations as the number of employees facing hierarchical plateaus continues to grow. The failu re of hierarchical plateaus to predict OCB may be explained in part by the demographic and or ganizational changes that have taken place in the last decades. A large number of the baby boomer generation has reached the age where hierarchical plateaus are commonplace (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994). They have also been witness to, or personally involved in corporate restructurings and do wnsizings that have flattened the levels of the organizational pyramids. As a result, they may understand the ramifications to their hierarchical career progression (Allen, Russell, Poteet, & Dobbins, 1999; Boyatzis & Kram,

PAGE 117

107 1999). In addition, employees that have reached a hi erarchical plateau may adapt to the situation by becoming more involved in non-work activiti es or relationships (Near, 1985). The correlations found between hierarchical plateau and the other study variables support this explanation. As compared to those who rated themselves as less plateaued, those who rated themselves more hierarchically plateaued were typically older, so mewhat less involved in their jobs, and much less committed to their occupations. An alternative, but related, explanation has to do with the refined classification and measurement of the career plateau construct. A lthough the hierachically plateaued may report less positive attitudes than those who do not report being plateaued, the negative behavioral ramifications of career plateaus may result more specifically from the lack of job challenge or responsibility. Thus, the perception of being job content plateaued may be more personally and organizationally damaging than the perception of being hierachically plateaued (Allen, Russell, Poteet, & Dobbins, 1999). Job Content Plateau. Feldman and Weitz (1988) first suggested that career plateaus should be defined less by hierarchical progression, th e historical perspective, than by levels of responsibility. Bardwick (1986) expanded the career plateau concept to incl ude both a job content plateau, a lack of job challenge or responsibility, and a structural or hierarchical plateau, a limited chance for upward mobility. Contrary to the hypothesis, no evidence was found that perceptions of job content plateau moderated the relationship between the career variables and OCB. From an organizational perspective this may be promising in that career motivated employees who choose OCB as a career strategy may continue to perform the behavi ors regardless of the extent that they believe their jobs lack challenge. Career focused employees could use extra role behaviors as a mechanism to alleviate or ameliorate the negativ e motivational effects of being content plateaued. Although the hypothesis was not supported, perceptions of job content plateau was negatively associated with critical study variables. Specifically, as compared to those who reported lower levels of plateau, those reporting hi gher levels of job content plateau were less involved in their jobs, less committed to their o ccupations and, less likely to perform OCB. No relationship was found between perceptions of job content plateau and self-reports of OCBI-DIRECT. This suggests that this direct fo rm of helping may not be as highly valued a career strategy as the other two forms of OCB. Di rect helping of coworkers and supervisors may be seen as an expression of prosocial values, rath er than as a career strategy. Rioux and Penner (2001) found that prosocial values explained vari ance in the altruism dimension of OCB over and

PAGE 118

108 above personality and organizati onal justice. Alternatively, OCBI-DIRECT may be viewed as a more visible and/or role related behavior. Mo rrison (1994) found that employees differ in the extent that they view certain behaviors as OCB. It may be that even those who feel their jobs lack challenge may feel compelled to help their coworkers and supervisors. Higher perceptions of content plateau were negatively associated with self-reports of OCBI-INDIRECT and OCBO. In add ition, job content plateau was the only significant predictor of these two forms of OCB when they were regressed on the career variables, providing incremental value over the variance explained by the organization and demographic variables. These somewhat impersonal forms of citizenship behaviors may be viewed as more voluntary than helping supervisors or coworkers (i.e., OCBI-DIRECT). To the extent that employees feel they lack challenge or growth opportunities in their jobs, these indirect behaviors could be suspended with less fear of evaluative retribution. Alternatively, those who go out of their way to help their coworkers and/or demonstrate their commitment to their organization may feel mo re involved and satisfied with their jobs. That is, the performance of OCB may actually decrease the perceptions of being content plateaued. This alternative cannot be ruled out by the cross-sectional nature of the current study. Job content was negatively associated with career identity, suggesting that those who were not challenged by their current jobs may lack direction or may be exploring other career alternatives. Indirect support for this explana tion is found in the association between job content and career stage. Participants in the early stag es of their careers were more likely to experience the lack of challenges defined as job content pl ateau than those in later career stages. Highly educated employees (representative of this sample ) in the early stages of their career may have high expectations for the responsibilities they will be allowed to assume. Organizations, by contrast, may not be willing to let those with re latively lower levels of experience assume major job challenges. Career Stage Theoretical models (Hall, 1971, 1976, Levinson, 1986, Super, 1957) have suggested and empirical data (e.g., Allen, Free man, Reizenstein, & Rentz, 1995, Rabinowitz & Hall, 1981) have shown that career stage influe nces the relationship between various job and organizational attitudes and behaviors. The moderation hypothesis was based on the presumption that career focused employees would perform OCB, but that the relationship would be altered based on current career issues. To test this hypothesis, participants in the boundary stages of their careers (i.e., the exploration and disengagement stages) were aggregated into one group and those in the primary stages (i.e., the establishment a nd maintenance stages) were combined into

PAGE 119

109 another; the two groups were then dummy coded for analyses. The data provided very limited support for the hypothesis. Career stage did moderate the relationshi ps between job involvement and coworker ratings of OCB. As anticipated, participants in the primary career stage uniformly received higher coworker ratings of all forms of OCB than those in the boundary career stage. Moreover, levels of job involvement were differentially related to the indices of OCB for the two stages. There was virtually no relationship between job involvem ent and coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT for those at the beginning or end of their career. In the primary career stages however, as hypothesized, participants that were more involved in their jobs received higher ratings of OCBIDIRECT. This suggests that, for job involved em ployees in the primary career stages, helping coworkers and supervisors is a reasonable behavioral expression. The findings for the two other dimension of OCB were contrary to expectations, however, and somewhat more difficult to explain. For ratings of OCBI-INDIRECT, job involvement was positively related to coworker ratings for all employees. The relationship was somewhat stronger, however, for participants in the boundary stages than for those in the primary stages. Finally, participants in the boundary stage received higher ratings on OCBO the more involved they were in their jobs. Job involvem ent had no appreciable influence on OCBO ratings for those in the primary stages, however. The results support research indicating that career stage moderates the relationship between career variables. Stumpf and Rabinowitz (1981) for example, found that career stage influenced the relationships between satisfaction with work and coworkers and various performance indices. Results of the current study may be attributed in part to the congruence between job involvement and OCB. Many of the behaviors identified as OCB may also be viewed as evidence of job involvement. W. L. Cron (personal communication, Aug. 14, 2001) argued, for example, that job involvement and career stag es were closely linked and proposed that OCB would be related as well. It may be easier fo r coworkers to identify higher levels of job involvement than of career motivation or occ upational commitment. Coworkers may perceive direct helping behaviors performed by those in the primary career stages as evidence of their job involvement. Those in the early or late career stages received lower ratings of OCBI, which may be attributed to other causes (e.g., personality). For those in the boundary stages, coworkers were more likely to attribute performance of OCBI-IN DIRECT and OCBO to their job involvement than for those in the primary stages. OCBO and to a lesser extent, OCBI-INDIRECT may be

PAGE 120

110 viewed as a job requirement for those in the prim ary career stage and less subject to the influence of job involvement. The career stage moderation hypothesis was not supported, however, with any of the other career variables for either participant or coworker ratings. One reasonable explanation for a failure to find the hypothesized results relates to the gender of the sample. Predominantly male samples have been used in the theoretical and em pirical career stage research to both develop the career stage models and to document the influence of career stages on attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Lynn, Cao, & Horn, 1996). The current sample, by contrast, was 67% female. Researchers have begun to question the usefulness of male career stage models for female workers because of the disparity in how they approach and manage their careers (Ornstein & Isabella, 1993). Ornstein and Isabella (1990) found that neither Levinson s (1986) life stage model nor Supers (1957) career stage model were viable predictors of womens job attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, Lynn, Cao, and Horn, (1996) found there were differences in work attitudes across career stages for male, but not for female accounting professionals. Although limited evidence was found for car eer stage as a moderator, career stage was found to be directly related to OCB. Participants in the more advanced career stages were more likely than those in the early stages to perform OCBO. Overall, the pattern of relationships between career stage and the other variables s uggests that employees may learn or come to perform OCBO as they advance in career stage. In the exploration stage, people are focused on investigating and identifying an appropriate job and/or career, becoming sociali zed to the organization and work group, and developing job competence (Gr eenhaus & Callanan, 1994). They may not see the need to go beyond what is required in their jobs, in part becau se they have not yet decided that this is the career they want to pursue. In the establishment stage, employees may employ more overt or direct career strategies than OCB to achieve career goals. For example, they may focus on exhibiting competence in their role defined task s, pursuing educational opportunities designed to increase their skill development, and building a lliances with mentors. Once employees reach the maintenance stage they may view OCBO as a m eans to remain productive, offset the negative connotations of educational obsolescence, and re duce the possibilities of being career plateaued. Finally, in the disengagement stage, when most workers will have reached some form of career plateau, OCBO may be a viable demonstration of the older workers involvement in and commitment to the organization.

PAGE 121

111 The argument could also be made that OCB s hould be viewed as less of a career strategy and more a function of age or career stage. Partic ipants in the more advanced career stages were also older than those in the early career stages. In addition, older people were also more likely than younger to perform OCBI-DIRECT. Althoug h reasonable, several factors mitigate the viability of this explanation. First, neither form of OCBI was related to career stage, and OCBIINDIRECT was not related to age. Second, car eer stage was also positively correlated with occupational commitment, and career identity, insi ght and resilience. Finally, when combined with the other career variables, career stage did not emerge as a significant individual predictor of OCBO. This suggests that the relationship between career stage and OCBO is based on its shared relationships with motivation and commitment to career. Rating Source Differences Research Question Increasingly researchers and managers have recognized the value of gathering performance data from multiple sources. Data obtai ned from different sources, for example, can help to overcome the measurement problem of same source bias, which can spuriously inflate correlations. In addition, Borman (1974, 1991, & 1997) suggested that different rating sources may provide reliable evaluations of different performance information. To examine these potential differences, the present study attempted to gather data from participants, coworkers, and supervisors. The obtained data precluded the comp arison of participant ra tings with supervisor and coworker ratings; the differences between the co rrelations of participant and coworker ratings with the study variables were compared for si gnificance. In addition, all the hypotheses were examined from the perspective of participant a nd the combined coworker/supervisor ratings of OCB. The results show only modest evid ence of differences between rating sources. In direct comparisons, tests of the indi vidual differences betw een participant and coworker correlations with the career variabl es showed only one reliable difference. The association between career identity and participant ratings of OCBO was significantly stronger than the relationship of identity and coworker ra tings. None of the other participant correlations with the study variables were significantly different than the coworker correlations. There are at least two explanations for the failure to find other significant differences between the participant and coworker correlations. The first reason is related to the pattern and size of the correlations. Coworker ratings of O CB were not associated with any of the career variables. Participant ratings of OCB were al so not related to job involvement; occupational commitment was only related to OCBO. No differences between the correlations for these variables would be expected. Moreover, the re lative magnitude of the correlations for those

PAGE 122

112 participant ratings that were associated with th e career variables was low to moderate. The second reason that differences were not fo und is related to statistical power It is more difficult to find significant differences between two correlations than to obtain significance when comparing one correlation to zero because of the greater variabilit y inherent in the combination of two groups and the statistical limitations of th e smaller sample size (Bobko, 1995). Similar results were found for rating source differences obtained from other analyses. For example, although mean participant ratings of O CBO were significantly higher than coworker ratings, no differences were found between partic ipant and coworker ratings on either facet of OCBI. This supports previous research by Allen and her associates (2000). In comparing self with supervisor and subordinate rati ngs, they found that self ratings were generally the same as supervisor ratings on the facets of OCB but were higher than subordinate ratings. Based on the analysis of the MTMR matrix in the current study, there was modest convergent validity and a lack of discriminant validity suggesting signifi cant method (rater) variance, particularly in coworker ratings. Taken as a whole, difference s based on rating source were evident only for citizenship behaviors directed toward the organization. As mentioned, there were no significant rela tionships between any of the career focused variables and coworker ratings of OCB. One possible explanation has to do with the visibility of career attitudes. For example, all of the caree r motivation variables, insight, identity, and resilience, were related to OCB, particularly OCBO. London (1983) defined career motivation as an internal drive described by personality factors, needs, and interests, which is reflected in an individuals goals and career management behavior. Motivations are not observable. Only the behaviors that result from the motivations can be observed by others (Bolino, 1999). Not only are career motivations transparent, but participants may purposefully hide career motives from coworkers and supervisors. In a gove rnmental setting, for example, organizational or group norms may exist that encourage aver age performance. Vocalizing career strategies and/or exhibiting behaviors designed to get ahead may be frowned on by the rank and file. Under those circumstances, career focused employees could perform in ways designed to help them get ahead without elaborating their underlying motivation for doing so. That is, career motivated employees may let their actions speak for themselves. Moreover, the causal attributions that could be made for citizenship behaviors may subtly discourage participants from showing their true motivations. In the present study, the advantages of the behaviors to the organization were presu med to be equitable regardless of the underlying motives. However, Eastman (1994) found the same extrarole behaviors were variously described

PAGE 123

113 as good citizenship or ingratiation. Behaviors described as citizenship received higher evaluations and pay raises. Similarly, Allen and Rush (1998) found that causal attributions (altruistic vs. instrumental) for OCB influenced reward recommendations. Thus, under certain organizational situations, participants may feel compelled to hide or disguise what may be interpreted as instrumental career motivations for their performance of OCB. Finally, recall that coworker ratings of OCBI-DIRECT and OCBO were predicted by participant level of education and gender, resp ectively. In particular, coworkers rated more educated participants as less likely to perform OCBI or OCBO than participants with lower levels of education. In addition, as compared to mal es, females received higher coworker ratings of OCB. This finding is congruent with results from Allen and Rush (1998) who found that raters judged females as more likely than males to perform citizenship behaviors in male typed or gender neutral jobs. The link between demographi cs and coworker ratings of OCB suggests that, unable to see career motivations, coworkers may have relied on stereotypes to explain these extrarole behaviors. Post Hoc Analyses Although not part of the formal hypotheses, post hoc analyses showed that participant and coworker ratings of OCB were reliably predic ted by education, job and organizational tenure, and gender. As compared to those with less educa tion, the more highly educated participants were less likely to help their coworkers and supervisors. Employees with more job and organizational experience were more likely to perform OCB than those with less tenure. Moreover, females were judged more likely than males to perform OCBO The demographic results provide one of the few areas of consistency between pa rticipant and coworkers ratings. In almost all work environments, the more highly educated employees have more career options than those with less education. Highly e ducated employees (the majority in the current sample) may believe that their inrole performan ce is sufficient to gain their desired career rewards. If unable to achieve their career goals with their current employer, they have the education needed to obtain desirable positions with other employers. As a result, highly educated employees may not feel compelled to help others in the workplace. Interestingly, as compared to the less educated, the more educated participan ts rated themselves lower only on this direct helping facet of OCBI (OCBI-DIRECT), a pattern which matched the ratings that coworkers provided. Those with more tenure on the job were also more likely to help coworkers than those with less job tenure. As compared to those who ha ve less time on the job, those with longer job

PAGE 124

114 tenure are more likely to have a closer relations hip with their coworkers, and could help them more as a result. Alternatively, those who have been on the same job for longer periods of time may have greater concerns about career advancem ent than those with less job tenure and may help their coworkers and supervisors in order to receive increased recognition and/or job opportunities. Participant and coworker ratings of OCBO were predicted by ge nder and organizational tenure. Females, and those with more tenure in the organization, were more likely to adhere to informal rules, conserve organizational property, and maintain high attendance standards than were males and those with less organizational tenure. Considering that females were also the less educated in the sample, these results provide add itional, unanticipated support for the use of OCB as a career strategy, particularly for women. As tin (1984) suggested that work motivation is comparable for men and women but that sociali zation and opportunities can lead to different career choices. Moreover, Powell and Mainie ro (1992) suggested that womens career perspectives, decisions, and behavior are differe nt than are mens, in part because of the conflicting concerns that women feel about career and family and personal relationships. In the current sample, males and females reported similar levels of career motivation but males were more educated than females. Career motivated females may have fewer career options than their career motivated male counterparts. Under tho se circumstances, females may perform OCB to help them gain a competitive edge in career advancement. Employees with more organizational tenure may perform OCBO because they have invested more resources in, and have a stronger commitment to, the organization. This investment may be reflected in behaviors designed to de monstrate that commitment and benefit the organization. Conversely, those with more organi zational tenure may also feel they have fewer job opportunities elsewhere. Under those circumstan ces, OCBO may be viewed as a viable career development strategy. Summary Although very little evidence for moderation was found, the career variables examined in the current study are clearly related to OCB. In particular, employees who are career motivated and perceive that their jobs are challenging, are more likely to perform OCB than those who are less motivated by their careers or those who feel their jobs lack challenge and responsibility. The career motivation variables explain variance in participant ratings of OCB over and above that which is explained by the organization and demographics. The organization in which people are employed is related to both participant and cowo rker ratings of OCB. London (1983) argued that

PAGE 125

115 situational factors would have both a direct infl uence on career behaviors and/or interact with individual factors to moderate career behaviors. Finally, some combination of education, tenure, and/or gender contributed significantly to the expl anation of participant ratings of OCBI-DIRECT and OCBO; education and gender expl ained coworker ratings of OCB. Theoretical and Practical Implications The results of the current study broaden our understanding and explanation of why some employees are willing to go beyond what is required in their jobs. OCB theory and research has focused primarily on job attitudes, personality, and justice cognitions; the presumption has been that citizenship behavior is reactive. Evidence from the present study suggests that OCB may be a very proactive strategy chosen by motivated empl oyees for instrumental reasons. From a practical perspective, organizations may find it useful to advertise or communicate to their employees that rewards could accrue from the performance of O CB. This contradicts prior concerns that identifying and explicitly rewarding OCB could have deleterious effects on this voluntary behavior. This work has also extended the career manage ment literature by more clearly delineating the taxonomy of career strategies that may be u seful to help achieve career goals. The link between career motivation and OCB supports Londo ns (1983) theory of career motivation and expands our understanding work behavior. The role played by job content plateau in predicting citizenship behaviors helps extend our understanding of the nega tive consequences that result from lack of challenge and responsibility in the work environment. This influence may be particularly important among younger workers and/or those in their early career stages. One practical conclusion is that organizations may be able to increase the levels of OCB by helping, particularly those in their early career stage, stay challenged in their jobs Alternatively, an organization which does not challenge its workers may experience lower levels of OCB. An interesting highlight of the study was the role that education and gender played in predicting both self and coworker ratings of OCB. The more highly educated were less likely to help coworkers and supervisors than those less educated. Moreover, as opposed to males, females rated themselves and were rated as more likely to perform OCBO. Study Limitations and Future Research A key factor underlying the attempt to gather data from three sour ces was to reduce the limitations inherent in same s ource data. Although the sample size was not sufficient to compare

PAGE 126

116 participant data with coworker and supervisor responses, the reliability of coworker responses was increased, where possible, by averaging both coworker and supervisor data. The original research proposal was developed with the inte ntion of obtaining sufficient data from one organizational source. Because of response limitations, it became necessary to combine data from two sources, both organizational samples including employees from different countries. In concert, these factors increase the generalizability of the results. In hindsight, the two organizations from which the samples were drawn may not have been the most appropriate to provide a thorough test of the hypotheses. The Corporation was in the midst of both financial and managerial turm oil. A relatively large number of employees had been laid off; many had voluntarily left, and there was a pending risk that the Corporation would be sold. From the perspective of the psyc hological contract, the Corporations current employment relationship may have been characteri zed as either transactional or transitional. A transactional employment contract is a short term, monetary or economic exchange of benefits. In volatile organizational situations there may be a breakdown of the employment contract, what might be termed a transitional arrangement (Rousseau, 1995). Under either of these two scenarios, career focused employees may have been searching for new employment opportunities, rather than working to advance their careers in an organization with a tenuous future. London and Noe (1997) suggested that a declining business environment and the potential for layoffs can reduce employee levels of career motivation. The University sample, by contrast, consisted of governmental employees for whom the opportunities for reward or advancement are constr ained by a promotional merit system. Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo, and Borman (1998) found th at, in more cooperative settings, prudence, (i.e., conscientiousness) rather than ambition pred icted OCB. The authors speculated that the motivation underlying OCB in this type of orga nizational setting would more closely approximate getting along rather than getting ahead. Give n the limitations of these organizational samples, it would be useful to replicate the study in several large corporate environments in which opportunities exist for, and value is placed on, career growth and development. It should be noted, however, that no organi zation presents an optimal sample over time. That is, organizational conditions continually change with the econom ic and environmental climate and a corporation experiencing grow th and expansion toda y may face financial difficulties tomorrow. Moreover, measuring OCB in any setting will be difficult given the potential influence of group norms that can vary c onsiderably within the same organization. From that perspective, these samples ma y present an accurate test of current organizational conditions.

PAGE 127

117 This study was an initial attempt to look fo r career focused variables that may influence OCB. Although the hypotheses were developed and tested based on theory, the results are based of correlational data gathered at one point in tim e. No variables were manipulated; the direction of causation cannot be determined. It is also possible that employees who regularly perform OCB derive positive benefits, which s ubsequently increase their levels of career motivation. Moreover, helping others in the workplace may increase the ch allenge and responsibility of the job, reducing the perception of a career plateau. Alternatively, performing OCB may become part of an employees work role. Penner and Finkelste in (1998) argued that employees who initially performed prosocial behaviors for one reason ma y, over time, come to view themselves as a good citizens, continuing the behaviors to main tain the role identity. Having identified these specific career variables that are related to OCB, it would be useful to refine the proposed model, gather further data, and test the model for viability. One final limitation relates to the nature of the sample. Participants from both organizations volunteered to participate. Penner et al. (1995) reported that volunteers scored higher than non-volunteers on both prosocial and other-oriented empathy scales. The results may be skewed therefore, towards people who are more likely to help others. This may be particularly relevant since neither organization encouraged their employees to participate in the study. The motivational intention and mechanis m underlying OCB warrant further research attention, particularly as it relates to career st rategies. A number of authors have suggested and found that motivations underlying OCB include altrui sm or prosocial values, or instrumental or impression management motives (e.g., Eastman, 1994, Rioux & Penner, 2001). Bolino (1999) suggested that employees perform OCB to manage the impression others have of them. He argues, however, and Eastman showed, that audien ce attributions will moderate the extent that those who engage in OCB are viewed as good citizens or good actors. An underlying theme in these treatises is that instrumental motivati ons may have negative c onnotations and potentially consequences for the individual and the organization. Certainly employees who only engage in OCB in temporal proximity to their performan ce evaluations, or perform only those behaviors that are highly visible to supervisors may be more politically motivated than truly career motivated. It is reasonable to believe however, that the regular performance of OCB can benefit both the individual performing the behavior and the organization in which the behavior is performed.

PAGE 128

118 Conclusions Evidence from the present stud y suggests citizenship behaviors are performed by career motivated employees. To the extent that organi zations can identify employees who are motivated by their careers, and/or increase their levels of motivation, they may be able to increase the incidence of OCB. The identification of the relationship between job content plateau and OCB expands our understanding of career plateaus and how job ch allenge can influence performance. In an economic environment where a growing number of people are experiencing hierarchical career plateaus (Greenhaus & Callanan, 1994), it is criti cal for organizations to recognize that a more serious performance deterrent is lack of responsibility and challenge.

PAGE 129

119 References Adler, S., & Aranya, N. (1984). A comparison of the work needs, attitudes, and preferences of professional accountants at different career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior 25, 45-57. Allen, T. D., Barnard, S., Rush, M. C., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). Ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: Does the source make a difference? Human Resource Management Review, 10 97-114. Allen, T. D., Freeman, D. M., Reizenstein, R. C., & Rentz, J. O. (1995). Just another transition? Examining survivors attitudes over time. Academy of Management Journal, Best Papers Proceedings 78-86. Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Russell, J. E. A. (1998). Attitudes of managers who are more or less career plateaued. Career Development Quarterly, 47 159-172. Allen, T. D. & Rush, M. C. (1998). The eff ects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (2), 247-260. Allen, T. D., Russell, J. E. A., Poteet, M. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1999). Learning and development factors related to perceptions of job content and hierarchical plateauing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 1113-1137. Altman, B. W., & Post, J. E. (1996). Beyond the "social contract," An analysis of the executive view at twenty-five large compan ies. In D. T. Hall & Associates (Eds.), The Career is Dead-Long Live the Career, pp 46-71. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1994) An investigation of the predictors and outcomes of career commitment in three career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 1-16. Aryee, S., & Tan, K. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of career commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40 288-305. Bardwick, J. M. (1986). The plateauing trap New York: Bantam Barnard, C. (1938, 1968). The functions of the executive Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 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 (4), 587-595.

PAGE 130

120 Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35( 1), 232-244. Becker, T. E., & Vance, R. J. (1993). Construct validity of three types of organizational citizenship behavior: An illustration of th e direct product model with refinements. Journal of Management, 19(3), 663-682. Blau, G. (1985). The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58 277-288. Blau, G. (1988). Further exploring the meaning and measurement of career commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32 284-297. Blau, G. (1989). Testing the generalizabilit y of a career commitment measure and its impact on employee turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35 88-103. Blau, G., Paul, A., & St. John, N. (1993). On developing a general index of work commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42 298-314. Bobko, P. (1995). Correlation and regression: Principles and applications for industrial/organizational psychology and management New York: McGraw Hill. Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and im pression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review 24 (1), 82-98. Borman, W. C. (1974). The ratings of indi viduals in organizations: An alternative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12 105-124. Borman, W. C. (1991). Job behavior, performan ce, and effectiveness. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 271-326). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists. Borman, W. C. (1997). 360 ratings: An analysis of assumptions and a research agenda for evaluating their validity. Human Resource Management Review, 7 (3), 299-315. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection (pp.71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W. C., & Penner, L. A. (2001) Citizenship performance: Its nature, antecedents, and motives. Chapter in B. Roberts and R. Hogan (Eds.). Personality Psychology in the Workplace. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. (pp. 45-61). Borman, W. C., White, L. E., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of rate task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (1), 168-177. Boyatsiz, R. E., & Kram, K. E. (1999). Reconstructing management education as lifelong learning. Selections, 16 (1), 17-27.

PAGE 131

121 Brannick, M. T., (2004). http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~mbrannic/files/regression/CATCON1.html, p. 8. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 10 710-725. Burke, R. J. (1989). Examining the career plateau: Some preliminary findings. Psychological Reports, 65 295-306. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56 81-105. Carnazza, J. P., Korman, A. K., Ference, T. P., & Stoner, J. A. F. (1981). Plateaued and non-plateaued managers: Factors in job performance. Journal of Management, 7 (2), 7-25. Carson, K. D., & Bedian, A. G. (1994). Career commitment: construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44 237-262. Carson, K. D., & Carson, P. P. (1998). Career commitment, competencies, and citizenship. Journal of Career Assessment, 6 (2), 195-208. Chao, G. T. (1990). Exploration of the conceptualization and measurement of career plateau: A comparative analysis. Journal of Management, 16 (1), 181-193. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colarelli, S. M., & Bishop, R. C. (1990). Ca reer commitment functions, correlates, and management. Group & Organization Studies, 15 (2), 158-176. Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing cont extual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (1), 3-13. Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1986). The influence of career stages on salepeople's job attitudes, work perceptions, and performance. Journal of Marketing Research, XXIII 119129. Deckop, J. R., Mangel, R., & Cirka, C. C. (1999). Getting more than you pay for: Organizational citizenship behavior and pay-for-performance plans. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (4), 420-428. DeConinck, J. (1993). Managing the real estate salesforce through career stages. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 10 (1), 35-44. Drenth, D. (1999). Workload satisfaction: another antecedent of organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and organizationa l citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (5), 1379-1391.

PAGE 132

122 Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & van den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-oriented versus teamoriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (5), 717-730. Elsass, P. M., & Ralston, D. A. (1989). I ndividual responses to the stress of career plateauing. Journal of Management, 15 35-47. Fahr, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16, 705-721. Feldman, D. C. (1988). Managing careers in organizations. Glenview IL: Scott Foresman. Feldman, D. C., & Weitz, B. A. (1988). Career plateaus reconsidered. Journal of Management, 14 69-80. Feldman, D. C., & Weitz, B. A. (1992). From the invisible hand to the glad hand: Understanding a careerist orientation to work. Human Resources Management, 30 (2) 237-257. Ference, T. P., & Stoner, J. A., & Warren, E. K. (1977). Managing the career plateau. Academy of Management Review, 2 602-612. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Folger, R. (1993), Justice, motivation, and performance beyond role requirements. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 6 (3), 239-248. Gattiker, U. E., & Larwood, L. (1990). Predictors for career achievement in the corporate hierarchy. Human Relations, 43 (8), 703-726. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (2), 310329. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance, 10 (2), 153-170. Gould, S., & Penley, L. E. (1984). Career strategies and salary progression: A study of their relationships in a municipal bureaucracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34 244-265. Greenberg, J. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship: A commentary on the state of the science. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 6(3), 249-256. Greenhaus, J. H. (1971). An investigation of the role of career salience in vocational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1 209-216.

PAGE 133

123 Greenhaus, J. H., & Callanan, G. A. (1994). Career management. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace. Hall, D. T. (1971). A theoretical model of career subidentity development in organizational settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6 50-76. Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing. Hall, D. T. (1985). Project work as an antidote to career plateauing in a declining engineering organization. Human Resource Management, 24 (3), 271-292. Hall, D. T., & Nougaim, K. (1968). An examination of Maslow's need hierarch in an organizational setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 3 12-35. Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-62. Hogan, J., Rybicki, S. L., Motowidlo, S. J ., & Borman, W. C., (1998). Relations between contextual performance, personality and occupational advancement. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 189-207. 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(5), 822-828. Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extrarole performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 3-21. Irving, P. G., Coleman, D. F., & Cooper, C. L. (1997). Further assessments of a threecomponent model of occupational commitm ent: Generalizability and differences across occupations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (3), 444-452. Kanungo, R. N. (1982a). Work alienation. An integrative approach New York: Praeger. Kanungo, R. N. (1982b). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (3), 341-349. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966, 1978). The social psychology of organizations New York: Wiley. Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Main and interaction effects of task and contextual performance on supervisory reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (4), 602-609. King, A. S., Ehrhard, B., & Parks, C. (1998). The crescendo effect in career motivation: an eight phase model. International Journal of Management, 15 (3), 302-311.

PAGE 134

124 Lam S. S. K., Hui, C. & Law, K. S. (1999). Organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing perspectives of supervisors and subo rdinates across four international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (4), 594-601. Lawler, E. E., & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54 (4), 305312. Levinson, D. J. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist 41 313. Lobel, S. A., & St. Clair, L. (1992). Effects of family responsibilities, gender, and career identity salience on performance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 35 (5), 1057-1069. Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The de finition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49 (1), 24-33. London, M. (1983). Toward a theory of career motivation. Academy of Management Review, 8, 620-630. London, M. (1988). Organizational support for employees' career motivation: A guide to human resource strategies in changing business conditions. Human Resource Planning, 11 (1), 2332. London, M. (1993a). Career motivation of fu lland part-time workers in mid and late career stages. International Journal of Career Management, 5(1), 21-29. London, M. (1993b). Relationships betw een career motivation, empowerment and support for career development. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 66, 5569. London, M. & Mone, E. M. (1987). Career management and survival in the workplace San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. London, M., & Noe, R. A. (1997). London's career motivation theory: An update on measurement and research. Journal of Career Assessment, 5 (1), 61-80. Lorence, J., & Mortimer J. T. (1985). Job involvement through the life course: A panel study of three age groups. American Sociological Review 50 618-638. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 123-150. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70-80. Mathieu, J. E. & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108 (2), 171194.

PAGE 135

125 McEnrue, M. P. (1989). Self-development as a career management strategy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34 57-68. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review. 1 61-98. Meyer J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (4), 538-551. Mihal, W. L., Sorce, P. A., & Comte, T. E. (1984). A process model of individual career decision making. Academy of Management Review, 9 (1), 95-103. Midili, A. R. (1996). Predicting self, peer, and supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: An analysis of situational and personality influences Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Midili, A. R., & Penner, L. A. (1995) Dispositional and environmental influences on organizational citizenship behavior Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY. Milliman, J. F. (1992). Causes, consequences, and moderating factors of career plateauing Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California. Morrow, P. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8 (3), 486-500. Morrison, E.W. (1994). Role definitions a nd organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (6), 1543-1567. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (4), 475-480. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14 224-247. Near, J. P. (1985). A discriminant analysis of plateaued versus nonplateaued managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26 177-188. Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and or ganizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (3), 527-556. Noe, R. A., Noe, A. W., & Bachhuber, J. A. (1990). An investigation of the correlates of career motivation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37 340-356. Noe, R. A., & Steffy, B. D. (1987). The influence of individual characteristics and assessment center evaluation on career exploration behavior and job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30 187-202.

PAGE 136

126 OReilly, C. A. III, & Caldwell, D. F. ( 1981). The commitment and job tenure of new employees: Some evidence of post decisional justification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 597-616. Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and re interpretation of the satisfaction-causesperformance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2 46-53. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavi or: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1990). Organizational citizenship behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 12 43-72. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10 85-97. Organ, D.W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cogn itive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (1), 157-64. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-ana lytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802. Ornstein S. & Isabelle, L. A. (1990). Age vs stage models of career attitudes of women: A partial replication and extension. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 1-19. Ornstein, S., & Isabella, L. A. (1993). Making sense of careers: A review 1989-1992. Journal of Management, 19 243-267. Orr, J. M., Sackett, P. R., & Mercer, M. ( 1989). The role of prescribed and nonprescribed behaviors in estimating the dollar value of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (1), 34-40. Patterson, L. E., Sutton, R. E., & Schuttenberg, E. M. (1987). Plateaued careers, productivity, and career satisfaction of college of education faculty. Career Development Quarterly, 35, 197-205. Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Dispositional and structural determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (2), 525-537. Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. R. (1995). Measuring the prosocial personality. In J. Butc her & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment. (Vol. 10, pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1989). A second generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31 351-363.

PAGE 137

127 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hu i, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors as determinants of managerial evalua tions of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowlands (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 11 1-40. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the th eoretical and empirical lite rature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-565. Powell, G. N., & Mainiero, L. A. (1992). Cross-currents in the river of time: Conceptualizing the complexities of womens careers. Journal of Management 18, 215-137. Rabinowitz, S. & Hall, D. T. (1977). Or ganizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 84 265-288. Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D. T. (1981). Changing correlates of job involvement in three career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior 18 138-144. Randall, D. M., & Cote, J. A. (1991). Interre lationships of work commitment constructs. Work and Occupations, 18 (2), 194-211. Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10 (3) 465-476. Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The cau ses of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (6), 1306-1314. Saal, F. E. (1978). Job involvement: A multivariate approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 (1), 53-61. Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schnake, M. (1991). Organizational citizenship : A review, proposed model, and research agenda. Human Relations, 44 735-759. Scholl, R. W. (1981). Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Academy of Management Review, 4 589-599. Sekaran, U. (1982). An investigation of th e career salience of men and women in dualcareer families. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 20, 111-119. Sheldon, M. E. (1971) Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 143-150. Shore T. H., Thornton, G. C., & Shore, L. M. (1990). Distinctiveness of three work attitudes: Job involvement, organizati onal commitment, and career salience, Psychological Reports, 67, 851-858.

PAGE 138

128 Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J L. (1979). Intraclass Correlations: Uses in Assessing Rater Reliability, Psychological Bulletin, 86 420-428. Slocum, J. W., Jr., & Cron, W. L. (1985). Job attitudes and performance during three career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26 126-145. Slocum, J. W., Cron, W. L., Hansen, R. W., & Rawlings, S. (1985). Business strategy and the management of plateaued employees. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 133-154. Smart, R. M. (1998). Career stages in Australian professional women: A test of Super's model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52 379-395. Smart, R. M., & Peterson, C. (1997). Super's career stages and the decision to change careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 358-374. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 653-663. Somers, M. J., & Birnbaum, D. (1998). Work-related commitment and job performance: It's also the nature of the performance that counts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19 621634. Sonnenfeld, J., & Kotter, J. P. (1982). The maturation of career theory. Human Relations, 35(1), 19-46. Stout, S. K., Slocum, J. W., & Cron, W. L. (1988). Dynamics of the career plateauing process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 74-91. Sugalski, T., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1986). Career exploration and goal setting among managerial employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29 102-114. Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers New York: Harper & Row. Super, D. E., Savickas, M. L., & Super, C. M. (1996). The life-span, life-space approach to careers. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career Choice and Development (pp 121-178). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stumpf, S. A., & Rabinowitz, S. (1981). Career stage as a moderator of performance relationships with facets of job satisfaction and role perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior 18, 202-218. Tillman, P. T. E. (1998). In search of moderators of the relationship between predictors of organizational citizenship and organizational citizenship behavior: The case of motives. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Tremblay, M., & Roger, A. (1993). Individual, familial, and organizational determinants of career plateau. Group & Organization Management, 18(4), 411-435. Tremblay, M., Roger, A., & Toulouse, J. M. (1995). Career plateau and work attitudes: An empirical study of managers. Human Relations, 48 (3), 221-237.

PAGE 139

129 Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 17 215-285. Viega, J. F. (1983). Mobility influences during managerial career stages. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (1). 64-85. Vroom, V. (1962). Ego-involvement, job satisfaction, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 15 159-177. Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of inrole and extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (1), 98107. Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7 (3), 418-428. Wiener, Y., & Gechman, A. S. (1977). Commitment: A behavioral approach to job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10 47-52. Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationshi ps between job, organization, and career commitments and work outcomes An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26 81-96. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizatio nal citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.

PAGE 140

130 Appendices

PAGE 141

131 Appendix A Data Collection Solicitation Request Dear ______, In todays challenging economic e nvironment, keeping great employees can be a key tactic to facilitate corporate performance and growth. The areas of career motivation and involvement are of increasing interest both to individuals and to organizations as companies have retracted their work forces or increased their reliance on contract workers. My name is Marty Sutton and I am a doctoral candi date at the University of South Florida in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. I am also the Administrator of the Employee Development Program at the Alabama Department of Transportation in Montgomery, AL. I am studying career involvement and its influe nce on organizational behavior. I believe that employees who are more focused on their careers (i.e., motivated by and involved in their jobs and careers) are more likely to perform voluntar y, conscientious and helpful behaviors (i.e., organizational citizenship behavior OCB) as a stra tegy to achieve their career goals. By contrast, career focused employees may be less willing to pe rform voluntary behaviors if they feel their jobs lack challenge or growth opportunities. To test these assumptions, I would like to ask the ________ employees to complete an online survey. Benefits for : In exchange for sponsoring my research, I will provide you with your employees perceptions regarding their levels of: Job involvement Career motivation Career commitment Perceptions of career plateau ( structural] and job content [i.e., challenge/growth] Career stage Citizenship behaviors Method: I have established an online survey on a secure website. The survey takes approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. I would ask your employees to participate via email delivered through your global email system. Each participant that comple tes the survey would be asked to provide the name and email address of his/her immediate supervisor and one coworker. The supervisor and

PAGE 142

132 Appendix A. (Continued). coworker would then be asked (via email) to evaluate the employee's citizenship behavior (5 minutes), again, through an on-line survey process. Cost: There would be no direct costs to ______________. Data analyses: I will perform all data analyses a nd present ___________with the aggregated results from the study. The accumulated data and r esults would be reported as part of my doctoral dissertation. I would like to discuss this with you at your convenience. Sincerely, Marty Sutton

PAGE 143

133 Appendix B Participant Survey On the following pages are lists of items or statem ents that may or may not be descriptive of you and your attitudes regarding your job and your occupation. There are no right or wrong answers. Please read each of the items or statements carefully and use the appropriate scales from each group of items to record your answers. Use the scale below to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Darken the circle that corresponds to your response. ________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree agree ________________________________________________________________________ How I feel about my job 1. The most important things that happen to me involve my present job. 2. To me, my job is only a small part of who I am. 3. I live, eat, and breathe my job. 4. Most of my interests are centered around my job. 5. Most of my personal life goals are job-oriented. 6. I consider my job to be very central to my existence. 7. I like to be absorbed in my job most of the time. How I feel about my occupation 1. If I could, I would go into a different occupation. 2. I can see myself in this occupation for many years. 3. My occupational choice was a good decision. 4. If I could do it all over, I would not choose this occupation. 5. If I had all the money I needed, I would still continue to work in this occupation. 6. I am sometimes dissatisfied with my chosen occupation. 7. I like my occupation too well to give it up. 8. My education and training are not tailored for this occupation. 9. I have an ideal occupation for a life's work. 10. I wish I had chosen a different occupation 11. I am disappointed that I ever entered this occupation. Please turn to the next page

PAGE 144

134 Appendix B (Continued). Use the scale below to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Darken the circle that corresponds to your response. ________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Strongly disagree disagree agree agree ________________________________________________________________________ My Job Challenges 1. I expect to be constantly challenged in my job. 2. I have an opportunity to learn and grow a lot in my current job. 3. My job tasks and activities have become routine for me. 4. My job responsibilities have increased significantly. 5. My job requires me to continually extend my abilities and knowledge. 6. I am challenged by my job. My Job Opportunities 1. I am unlikely to obtain a much higher job title in my organization. 2. I expect to advance to a higher level in my company in 3. the near future. 4. My opportunities for upward movement are limited in my 5. present organization. 6. I expect to be promoted frequently in my company in the future. 7. I have reached a point where I do not expect to move much 8. higher in my company. 9. The likelihood that I will get ahead in my organization is limited.

PAGE 145

135 Appendix B (Continued). CAREER ISSUES Listed below are a number of personal characteristics or situations that may or may not describe you and how you deal with your work situation. Use the scale below to rate the extent to which you believe you ha ve developed and would like to improve each of the following personal characteristic s. Darken the circle that corresponds to your response ________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Low, Moderate, High, less developed, somewhat developed, well developed, would like to improve improvement n eeded no improvement needed ________________________________________________________________________ 1. Am able to adapt to changing circumstances. 2. Am willing to take risks (actions with uncertain outcomes). 3. Welcome job and organizational ch anges (e.g. new assignments. 4. Can handle any work problems that come my way. 5. Look forward to working with new and different people. 6. Have clear career goals. 7. Have realistic career goals. 8. Know my strengths (the things I do well). 9. Know my weaknesses (the things I am not good at). 10. Recognize what I can do well and cannot do well. 11. Define myself by my work. 12. Work as hard as I can, even if it means frequently working long days and weekends. 13. Am involved in my job. 14. Am proud to work for my organization. 15. Believe that my success depends upon the success of my employer. 16. Am loyal to my employer. 17. See myself as a professional and/or technical expert. Please turn to the next page

PAGE 146

136 Appendix B (Continued). CAREER CONCERNS Listed below are statements of career concerns. How much thinking or planning have you done in these areas? Use the following scale to rate each statement. Darken the circle that corresponds to your response. _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Have not yet had A growing concern; A strong concern Still some concern No longer a to think seriously beginning to become at the present time ; but declining in concern; past about this important actively engaged in this importance that stage _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Clarifying my ideas about the type of work I would really like to do. 2. Deciding what I really want to do for a living. 3. Finding what line of work I am really best suited for. 4. Learning more about various kinds of opportunities that might be open to me. 5. Learning what skills and training are required for certain jobs in which I think I might be interested. 6. Choosing among the best career alternatives I now see. 7. Choosing a job, among the several that interest me, that will provide the most challenge. 8. Finding a line of work that really appeals to me. 9. Making sure of my current occupational choice. 10. Choosing a job that will really be satisfying for me. 11. Getting started in my chosen field. 12. Deciding how to qualify for the work I now want to do. 13. Meeting people who can help me get started in my chosen field. 14. Finding opportunity to do the kind of work I really like. 15. Making specific plans to achieve my current career goals. 16. Settling down in a job that I can really stay with. 17. Making a place for myself in my organization. 18. Doing things that will help me stay in my chosen job. 19. Achieving stability in my occupation. 20. Making my place in my organization secure. 21. Developing a reputation in my organization. 22. Making a reputation in my line of work. Please turn to the next page

PAGE 147

137 Appendix B (Continued). _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Have not yet had A growing concern; A strong concern Still some concern No longer a to think seriously beginning to become at the present time ; but declining in concern; past about this important actively engaged in this importance that stage _____________________________________________________________________________________ 23. Becoming a dependable producer. 24. Becoming especially skillful in my work. 25. Winning the support of my supervisor and employer. 26. Planning how to get ahead in my established field of work. 27. Getting ahead in the organization. 28. Doing the things that make people want me. 29. Finding ways of making my competence known. 30. Advancing to a more responsible position. 31. Maintaining the occupational position I have achieved. 32. Holding my own against the competition of new people entering the field. 33. Adapting to changes introduced since I got established in my job. 34. Keeping in tune with the people I work with. 35. Keeping ahead of the workers below me. 36. Reading the new literature and publications in my field. 37. Attending meetings and seminars on new methods. 38. Visiting places where new developments can be seen. 39. Taking part in non-work (leisure time) activities that will help me keep up to date on my work. 40. Getting refresher training. 41. Identifying new problems to work on. 42. Finding out about new opportunities as my field changes. 43. Deciding what new fields to open up or develop. 44. Developing new skills to cope with new needs and opportunities. 45. Developing special knowledge or new skills to help me improve on the job. 46. Developing easier ways of doing my work. 47. Concentrating on things I can do as I get older. 48. Cutting down on my working hours. Please turn to the next page

PAGE 148

138 Appendix B (Continued). _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Have not yet had A growing concern; A strong concern Still some concern No longer a to think seriously beginning to become at the present time ; but declining in concern; past about this important actively engaged in this importance that stage _____________________________________________________________________________________ 49. Avoiding excess occupational pressures. 50. Developing more hobbies to replace work interests. 51. Finding out what types of activities I would really like to engage in after retirement. 52. Planning well for retirement. 53. Making sure I can have a good life when I retire. 54. Talking to retired friends about the problems they faced and the adjustments they made when they retired. 55. Setting aside enough assets for retirement. 56. Finding an area of the country in which to retire. 57. Having a good life in retirement. 58. Having friends I can enjoy in retirement. 59. Making good use of the free time that comes with retirement. 60. Doing the things I've always wanted to do but never had the time for because of my work. Please turn to the next page

PAGE 149

139 Appendix B (Continued). Work Behaviors Listed below are a number of behaviors that some people may perform at work. It would be very unlikely for any one person to perform all the behaviors at the same level. Most people will be more proficient in some areas and less proficient in others. Consider your performance during your last six months on the job. For each statement please indicate HOW DESCRIPTIVE it is of you by marking the circle that corresponds to your response. ________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Somewhat Pretty much Very much Completely ________________________________________________________________________ 1. Adequately complete assigned duties. 2. Fulfill responsibilities specified in job description. 3. Perform tasks that are expected of you. 4. Meet formal performance requirements of the job. 5. Engage in activities that will directly affect your performance evaluation. 6. Neglect aspects of the job you are obligated to perform. 7. Fail to perform essential duties. 8. Help co-workers who have been absent. 9. Help your supervisor when he/she has been absent. 10. Help others who have heavy workloads. 11. Assist your supervisor with his/her work (when not asked). 12. Take time to listen to co-w orkers' problems and worries. 13. Go out of your way to help new employees. 14. Take a personal interest in other employees. 15. Pass along information to co-workers. 16. Pass along information to your supervisor. 17. Attendance at work is above the norm. 18. Give advance notice when unable to come to work. 19. Take undeserved work breaks. 20. A great deal of time is spent with personal phone conversations. 21. Complain about insignificant things at work. 22. Conserve and protect organizational property. 23. Adhere to informal rules devised to maintain order. Please turn to the next page

PAGE 150

140 Appendix B (Continued). I will be collecting information from people throu ghout the organization. To help me understand the characteristics of those who responded pl ease complete the following information. Please check the appropriate space. Your Age: _____ <20 _____ 46 50 _____ 21 25 _____ 51 55 _____ 26 30 _____ 56 60 _____ 31 35 _____ 61 65 _____ 36 40 _____ 65 + _____ 41 45 Your gender: _____ Ma le _____ Female Your Race: _____Caucasian/White _____ African-American/Black _____ Hispanic/Latino _____ American Indian/Alaskan Native _____ Asian/Pacific Islander _____ Other Your Education: _____ High School degree _____ Associate/two year degree _____ Master's degree _____ Four year degree _____ Doctoral degree _____ Some graduate education _____ Other How long have you worked in your current job ? _____ years _____ months How long have you worked in your current organization ? _____ years _____ months How long have you worked in your current occupation ? _____ years _____ months Thank you very much for your participation. If you have any questions or comments on the survey please contact Marty Sutton at _____ _____________

PAGE 151

141 Appendix C Supervisor Survey Listed below are a number of behaviors that some people may perform at work. It would be very unlikely for any one person to perform all the behaviors at the same level. Most people will be more proficient in some areas a nd less proficient in others. Consider this subordinates performance during their last six months on the job. For each statement please indicate HOW DESCRIPTIVE it is of this subordinate by darkening the circle that corresponds to your response. ________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Somewhat Pretty much Very much Completely ________________________________________________________________________ 1. Adequately completes assigned duties. 2. Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description. 3. Performs tasks that are expected of him/her. 4. Meets formal performance requirements of the job. 5. Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation. 6. Neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform. 7. Fails to perform essential duties. 8. Helps co-workers who have been absent. 9. Helps his/her supervisor when he/she has been absent. 10. Helps others who have heavy workloads. 11. Assists his/her supervisor with his/her work (when not asked). 12. Takes time to listen to co-wor kers' problems and worries. 13. Goes out of his/her way to help new employees. 14. Takes a personal interest in other employees. 15. Passes along information to co-workers. 16. Passes along information to his/her supervisor. 17. Attendance at work is above the norm. 18. Gives advance notice when unable to come to work. 19. Takes undeserved work breaks. 20. A great deal of time is spent with personal phone conversations. 21. Complains about insignificant things at work. 22. Conserves and protects organizational property. 23. Adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order. Please turn to the next page

PAGE 152

142 Appendix C (Continued). I will be collecting information from people throu ghout the organization. To help me understand the characteristics of those who responded pl ease complete the following information. Please check the appropriate space. Your gender: _____ Ma le _____ Female How long have you worked in your current job ? _____ years _____ months How long have your worked in this organization ? _____ years _____ months How long have you been a supervisor ? _____ years _____ months How long have you supervised this employee ? _____ years _____ months How frequently do you observe this employee's behavior? _____ 2-3 times per day _____ at least once per day _____ 2 3 times per week _____ at least once per week _____ 2 3 times per month _____ at least once a month Thank you very much for your participation. If you have any questions or comments on the survey please contact Marty Sutton at _____ _____________

PAGE 153

143 Appendix D Peer Survey Listed below are a number of behaviors that some people may perform at work. It would be very unlikely for any one person to perform all the behaviors at the same level. Most people will be more proficient in some areas a nd less proficient in others. Consider this subordinates performance during their last six months on the job. For each statement please indicate HOW DESCRIPTIVE it is of this subordinate by darkening the circle that corresponds to your response. ________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Somewhat Pretty much Very much Completely ________________________________________________________________________ 1. Adequately completes assigned duties. 2. Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description. 3. Performs tasks that are expected of him/her. 4. Meets formal performance requirements of the job. 5. Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation. 6. Neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform. 7. Fails to perform essential duties. 8. Helps co-workers who have been absent. 9. Helps his/her supervisor when he/she has been absent. 10. Helps others who have heavy workloads. 11. Assist his/her supervisor with his/her work (when not asked). 12. Takes time to listen to co-wor kers' problems and worries. 13. Goes out of his/her way to help new employees. 14. Takes a personal interest in other employees. 15. Passes along information to co-workers. 16. Passes along information to his/her supervisor. 17. Attendance at work is above the norm. 18. Gives advance notice when unable to come to work. 19. Takes undeserved work breaks. 20. A great deal of time is spent with personal phone conversations. 21. Complains about insignificant things at work. 22. Conserves and protects organizational property. 23. Adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order. Please turn to the next page

PAGE 154

144 Appendix D (Continued). I will be collecting information from people throu ghout the organization. To help me understand the characteristics of those who responded, pl ease complete the following information. Please check the appropriate space. Your gender: _____ Ma le _____ Female How long have you worked in your current job ? _____ years _____ months How long have you worked in this organization ? _____ years _____ months How long have you worked with this coworker ? _____ years _____ months How frequently do you work with this employ ee or observe this co-worker's behavior? _____ 2-3 times per day _____ at least once per day _____ 2 3 times per week _____ at least once per week _____ 2 3 times per month _____ at least once a month Thank you very much for your participation. If you have any questions or comments on the survey please contact Marty Sutton at _____ _____________

PAGE 155

145 Appendix E Emails to Corporation Employees Requesting Participation Greetings ___ coworkers! My name is Marty Sutton and I am a research a ssociate working in the Tampa office of _____. I am also completing my Ph.D. in I/O Psychology at the University of South Florida. I would like to ask for your help in collecting my dissertation data. My research interests are focused on careers and the career management process. I have created an online survey that asks for your perceptions and attitudes regarding your occupation, various career issues that you may be facing, and your work performance. The survey should take no more than 15 minutes to complete. In a second part of the research project, your supervisor and one coworker will be asked to complete an abbrev iated version of the same survey. The abridged version should take less than 5 minutes to complete. The hot link at the end of this email will ta ke you directly to the website housing the survey. I want to emphasize that the data is strictly confidential and will be used for research purposes only. To accomplish this, you will initiate your own 6-character username prior to beginning the survey. To ensure confidentiality, the survey program will automatically link your responses with the responses provided by your supervisor and coworker through your username. You will be asked to supply the site passwor d (listed below) and your username when you access the site. The relationship between career issues and performance is an important area of research. The time and effort you contribute to this pr oject will help to further this research. I would like to complete the first stage of data collection within the next two weeks. If possible, please complete the survey by Jan 15. I really appreciate your willingness to help me with my dissertation. If you have any questions, please contact me at 334-242-6783. Sincerely, Marty Sutton Site password is: dissertation (case sensitive type exactly as printed) Your 6-character username should be a co mbination of alpha, numeric, mixed case, or special characters Please click on the blue hot link to proceed with the survey now. Thanks! http://www.archinon.com/sutton/secure.html

PAGE 156

146 Appendix E (Continued). Email to Corporation Supervisors and/ or Coworkers Requesting Participation A few weeks ago I emailed _____ employees and asked them to help me gather data for my dissertation. They were asked to complete an onlin e survey of their perceptions regarding various career and occupational issues. You may have agreed to participate yourself. In order for the data from each participant to be included, his or her supervisor and one coworker must also complete a very short section of the original survey. This second phase will take less than five minutes. The employee listed below completed the first phase and included your name as either a coworker or supervisor. He/she has given their permission to have you rate them. I would ask you to complete the process to en sure that his/her data can be included. This abridged survey is also ava ilable online. The hot link listed at the end of this email will take you directly to the website housing this supe rvisor/coworker survey. You will be asked to supply the site password (listed below) when you access the site. As with the original survey, the data obtained in this second phase is strictly confidential. The program will automatically and confidentia lly link your responses to the participants. Thank you very much for your participation. If you have any questions, please contact me at 813229-6646. Marty Sutton Site password is: ______________ (case sen sitive type exactly as printed) Participant Name ____________________ Please click on the blue hot link to proceed with the survey now. Thanks! http://www..

PAGE 157

147 Appendix E (Continued). Reminder Email to Corporation Employees Happy New Year to all! Im just following up with individuals on my dissertation data collection. As you may recall, last month I asked for your help in completing an online survey regarding your attitudes on your career. I have heard from many of you, from all leve ls of the organization, throughout the world. Please accept my sincere thanks to all of you who have already participated. If you havent yet had a chance to complete the survey, I would ask you to do so now. I understand that the end of the year was an unusually busy time for everyone in the company, with holiday festivities, vacations, and those year-end billings to complete. I also know that your time is very valuable now. I think this is an importa nt area of research, however, certainly for me, but also for ____. To clarify an issue that arose previously, Im very interested in hearing from all employees at all organizational levels in the United States and internationally. You will be asked to supply the name of an i mmediate supervisor and one coworker, and to develop a 6-character username to link their responses with yours and keep all of your responses completely confidential The survey should take no more than 15 minutes to complete. Your supervisor and coworker will complete a very short section of the survey taking no more than 5 minutes. By the way, thanks to those coworkers and supervisors that responded to their follow-up emails, ensuring that all the data is complete.

PAGE 158

148 Appendix F Letter to University Employees Requesting Participation Hello! My name is Marty Sutton and I am a doctoral candi date at the University of South Florida. I would like to ask you a favor. I developed a survey that asks for your attitudes about your occupation and various career issues. I would like you to complete this survey, which will help me to complete my dissertation. I would also like one of your coworkers and your supe rvisor to complete a very short version of the same survey. All of the information is completely confidential The surveys have been numerically coded to link them together. All the paperwork is included in this envelope. The first package is the participant survey. Please sign one copy of the Informed Consent form, complete the survey and return the survey and the signed Consent form in the attached envelope. Th e other copy of the Informed Consent is yours to keep. I have also enclosed separate su rveys, consent forms, and envelopes for your supervisor and coworker. Your name is listed on their surveys on a removable label so they know who they are thinking about when they respond. After they comp lete the surveys they are asked to remove the name label and send the completed forms back to me. If you have any questions, please c ontact me at 334-271-5776 or msutton375@aol.com I really appreciate your help. I have been in school for a very long time and this is my final doctoral assignment. Your participation is extremely important. Sincerely, Marty Sutton

PAGE 159

149 Appendix F (Continued). Letter to University Supervisor/C oworker Requesting Participation Hello My name is Marty Sutton and I am a doctoral candi date at the University of South Florida. I would like to ask you a favor. One of your coworkers has agreed to help me by completing a survey on career issues. In order for me to use that persons information, his or her coworker must also complete one short section of the original survey. It should take just a fe w minutes to complete and all the information is completely confidential I numerically coded the surveys so I can link them together. First, please sign one copy of the Informed Consent Form, the other copy is yours to keep. The next document is the survey. It has the name of your coworker on a removable labe l. He/she has given permission to have you rate him/her. Please complete the survey based on your experience with that person. Then remove the name label so there will be no personal information on the form. Finally, send the survey and the signed Consent Form back to me in the enclosed envelope. If you have any questions, please c ontact me at 334-271-5776 or msutton375@aol.com I really appreciate your help with this. I have been in school for a very long time and this is my final doctoral assignment. Your participation is extremely important. Sincerely, Marty Sutton

PAGE 160

150 Appendix F (Continued). Reminder Note to University Participant for whom Coworker and Supervisor Previously Responded Dear _____, As you may recall, last month I asked for your help in completing a survey regarding your attitudes on your career. The survey is to be used in completing my dissertation. You also received surveys for your immediate supervisor and one coworker. You distributed those documents and both of those people have co mpleted and returned their surveys to me. Their responses are not usable, however, without the information you provide. If you havent yet had a chance to complete the survey, I would ask you to do so now. I know that your time is very valuable and I appreciate your help. Thanks in advance, Sincerely, Marty Sutton

PAGE 161

151 About the Author As a Vice President with Bank of America in California with 20 years of experience in the financial services industry, Martha Sutton retu rned to school to redirect her career. She obtained a Bachelors degree in Business Admini stration from Northwood University in Midland, Michigan in 1995 and a Master of Arts in Indus trial Organizational Psychology at the University of South Florida in 1998. Her research inter ests include employee development, organizational citizenship behavior, a nd organizational change. Ms. Sutton worked for a number of organizations while enrolled in the doctoral program at the University of South Florida. As a cons ultant with Brannick Human Resources Connection in Tampa, Florida, she developed and wrote a training manual for a division of a Fortune 100 company. During her tenure with Personnel Decisions Research Institutes (PDRI) she investigated selection processes in various industr ies, gathered predictive data from recruiters throughout the United States in a concurrent va lidation study, and made recommendation to the U.S. Army for the selection of Army Recruiters. As a contractor with PDRI, she implemented and administered the statewide Employee Development Program for the Alabama Department of Transportation; she was then appointed as the Acting Manager of Employee Development and Training for the DOT.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001680996
003 fts
005 20060215071105.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 051207s2005 flu sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001133
035
(OCoLC)62500804
SFE0001133
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
BF121 (Online)
1 100
Sutton, Martha J.
0 245
Organizational citizenship behavior
h [electronic resource] :
b a career development strategy /
by Martha J. Sutton.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2005.
502
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 161 pages.
Includes vita.
520
ABSTRACT: The goals of the present study were to 1.) develop a model of career related factors that could be related to organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB); and 2.) determine if the proposed relationships between the career focused variables and OCB differed across rating source. A total of 262 volunteers from a Corporation and University completed a survey in either online or by paper and pencil that included demographics and measures of: job involvement, career motivation, occupational commitment, perceptions of career plateau, career stage, and OCB. Ratings of OCB were obtained from approximately 195 participant supervisors and/or coworkers.Correlational and multiple regression analyses showed that, as hypothesized, career motivation and job content plateau were related to self-ratings of OCB, explaining unique variance beyond that accounted for by the organization and select demographics.Coworker ratings of OCB were explained only by the organization, levels of education and, gender. A series of regression analyses showed that the majority of the relationships between the career variables and ratings of OCB were not moderated by perceptions of career plateau or career stage. The relationship between job involvement and coworker ratings of OCB, however, was moderated by the participants career stage. Participants in the primary career stages received higher ratings than those in the boundary stages on all three forms of OCB. Simple slope analyses showed that, in general, those in the primary and boundary stages who were more job involved received higher ratings of OCB. Coworkers may have attributed extra-role behaviors to participants job involvement, the most visible career factor. Finally, the relationship between career identity and participant ratings of OCBO was stronger than between identity and coworker ratings of OCBO.
590
Adviser: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D.
653
Careers ocb motivation plateau commitment.
OCB.
Motivation.
Plateau.
Strategy.
Commitment.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1133