USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Are all good soldiers created equal? examining the "why" that underlies organizational citizenship behavior

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Are all good soldiers created equal? examining the "why" that underlies organizational citizenship behavior the development of an OCB motives scale
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Tolentino, Anna Lissa
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Motivation
Values
Needs
Scale development
Performance
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: Traditionally, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) have been conceptualized within a social exchange framework, implying that individuals perform citizenship behaviors in response to fair treatment by the organization (Zellars & Tepper, 2003). In accordance with this social exchange framework, researchers have identified a number of OCB antecedents, like perceived organizational support (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Settoon, Bennet, & Liden, 1996), job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational justice (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995), and leader-member exchange (Connell, 2005; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne & Greene, 1993).Recently, however, research has shifted from viewing OCB as a reactionary behavior in response to positive attitudes and emotions toward the organization to perceiving OCB as functional (e.g., Finkelstein & Penner, 2004, Rioux & Penner, 2001) - opening the door to exploration of both altruistic as well as self-serving motives to engage in OCB. Applying Schwartz's (1992) values theory and expanding on Rioux and Penner's (2001) three-dimensional OCB motives model, the goal of the proposed research was to identify additional underlying mechanisms for performing citizenship behaviors through the development and validation of the Good Soldier Motives Scale (GSMS). The 46-item scale, consisting of two subscales - (1) motives to perform OCBI (MOCBI) and (2) motives to perform OCBO (MOCBO) uncovered the following motives - Prosocial Values, Organizational Concern and Obligation, Instrumental, Intimacy, Achievement, and Guilt.Construct validation data revealed significant differential relationships between OCB motive dimensions and established constructs in the literature (i.e., regulatory focus, self-identity, Machiavellianism, self-monitoring, and values). Criterion validation results supported the predictive validity of the GSMS subscales with OCBI and OCBO. Furthermore, OCB motives accounted for significant variance beyond that of established attitudinal and personality OCB antecedents, replicating and expanding upon Rioux and Penner's (2001) findings. Lastly, the research took an initial pass at empirically examining the impact of motives on the quality of OCB through the assessment of OCB effectiveness. Findings revealed significant differences in OCB effectiveness when comparing self-enhancing motives versus the more traditional altruistic motives.Establishment of a valid, theoretically-derived OCB motives scale offers researchers an avenue to further investigate burgeoning research on self-serving motivations for OCB as well as altruistic ones. Alternatively, practitioners can leverage the GSMS in a variety of human resource applications, such as performance appraisals and training in order to enhance the participation in quality OCBs.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Anna Lissa Tolentino.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 167 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 - 002029059
oclc - 436864246
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002859
usfldc handle - e14.2859
System ID:
SFS0027176:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
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 2200409Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 002029059
005 20090916084651.0
007 cr bnu|||uuuuu
008 090916s2009 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002859
035
(OCoLC)436864246
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
BF121 (Online)
1 100
Tolentino, Anna Lissa.
0 245
Are all good soldiers created equal? examining the "why" that underlies organizational citizenship behavior :
b the development of an OCB motives scale
h [electronic resource] /
by Anna Lissa Tolentino.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2009.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 167 pages.
Includes vita.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
520
ABSTRACT: Traditionally, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) have been conceptualized within a social exchange framework, implying that individuals perform citizenship behaviors in response to fair treatment by the organization (Zellars & Tepper, 2003). In accordance with this social exchange framework, researchers have identified a number of OCB antecedents, like perceived organizational support (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Settoon, Bennet, & Liden, 1996), job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational justice (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995), and leader-member exchange (Connell, 2005; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne & Greene, 1993).Recently, however, research has shifted from viewing OCB as a reactionary behavior in response to positive attitudes and emotions toward the organization to perceiving OCB as functional (e.g., Finkelstein & Penner, 2004, Rioux & Penner, 2001) opening the door to exploration of both altruistic as well as self-serving motives to engage in OCB. Applying Schwartz's (1992) values theory and expanding on Rioux and Penner's (2001) three-dimensional OCB motives model, the goal of the proposed research was to identify additional underlying mechanisms for performing citizenship behaviors through the development and validation of the Good Soldier Motives Scale (GSMS). The 46-item scale, consisting of two subscales (1) motives to perform OCBI (MOCBI) and (2) motives to perform OCBO (MOCBO) uncovered the following motives Prosocial Values, Organizational Concern and Obligation, Instrumental, Intimacy, Achievement, and Guilt.Construct validation data revealed significant differential relationships between OCB motive dimensions and established constructs in the literature (i.e., regulatory focus, self-identity, Machiavellianism, self-monitoring, and values). Criterion validation results supported the predictive validity of the GSMS subscales with OCBI and OCBO. Furthermore, OCB motives accounted for significant variance beyond that of established attitudinal and personality OCB antecedents, replicating and expanding upon Rioux and Penner's (2001) findings. Lastly, the research took an initial pass at empirically examining the impact of motives on the quality of OCB through the assessment of OCB effectiveness. Findings revealed significant differences in OCB effectiveness when comparing self-enhancing motives versus the more traditional altruistic motives.Establishment of a valid, theoretically-derived OCB motives scale offers researchers an avenue to further investigate burgeoning research on self-serving motivations for OCB as well as altruistic ones. Alternatively, practitioners can leverage the GSMS in a variety of human resource applications, such as performance appraisals and training in order to enhance the participation in quality OCBs.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Co-advisor: Walter C. Borman, Ph.D.
Co-advisor: Russell E. Johnson, Ph.D.
653
Motivation
Values
Needs
Scale development
Performance
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2859



PAGE 1

Are All Good Soldiers Created Equal? Examining The "Why" That Underlies Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Developmen t of an OCB Motives Scale by Anna Lissa Tolentino 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 Co-Major Professor: Walter C. Borman, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Russell E. Johnson, Ph.D. Michael T. Brannick, Ph.D. Marcia A. Finkelstein Ph.D. Walter R. Nord, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 25, 2009 Keywords: motivation, values, needs, scale developm ent, performance Copyright 2009 Anna Lissa Tolentino

PAGE 2

Dedication My professional journey has been long but worthwhi le. I would not have been able to maintain the motivation and persistence wit hout the support of my family and friends. In particular, I would like to honor and t hank my parents, Dr. Alfonso Tolentino and Alicia Tolentino, who provided me not only with the financial support but also with the words of wisdom and encouragement, enabling me to go the extra 10,000 miles to attain this degree. I would also like to thank my sister, Alona Tolent ino, and my brother, Arman Tolentino, for supporting my efforts and assisting in any way possible – from helping me recruit participants to listening and providing the constant reinforcement to push forward. Thank you also to my close friends in the program – especially Ashley GrayWalvoord, Rebecca Bryant, and Burcu Rodopman. You t hree inspire me to achieve better than the best. I am very proud of all you! In the s hort time I’ve known you, you’ve accomplished more than what most individuals achiev e in a lifetime! Thank you for being my colleagues and more importantly, my good f riends.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements This dissertation represents the concerted effort of multiple individuals. First, I would like to thank Dr. Russell E. Johnson for help ing me transform my one-page idea to a 150-plus page compilation of four research studie s – which will eventually lead to a publication. I would also like to thank Dr. Walter C. Borman for inspiring me to study the concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. It was because of his research that I decided to go back to school and pursue my doctoral degree. Additionally, I would like to thank the rest of my committee members for providin g me with invaluable feedback throughout the dissertation process: Drs. Michael T Brannick, Marcia A. Finkelstein, and Walter R. Nord. Finally, I am also indebted to Dr. Michael Zia Mia n, a graduate from the USF I-O program, for helping me gather data as well as use his organization’s tool for data collection. I couldn’t have completed the study wit hout your assistance.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Figures.................................... ................................................... ..............................x Abstract........................................... ................................................... ................................xi Chapter 1: Introduction............................ ................................................... ........................1 Dimensionality of OCB.............................. ................................................... .............6 OCB Outcomes....................................... ................................................... .....................8 OCB Antecedents.................................... ................................................... .....................9 Attitudes.......................................... ................................................... .........................9 Personality........................................ ................................................... ......................11 Motivation......................................... ................................................... .....................12 Motivation to Perform OCB.......................... ................................................... ............13 Schwartz Values Theory............................. ................................................... ...............16 Integrating OCB Motives with Values................ ................................................... ..22 Self-enhancement................................... ................................................... ................23 Self-transcendence................................. ................................................... ................25 Openness to change................................. ................................................... ...............26 Conservation....................................... ................................................... ...................26 Scale Development and Validation................... ................................................... .........27 Chapter 2: Pilot Study of the Good Soldier Motives Scale.............................................. 29 Study 1: Development of OCB Motive Dimensions...... ..............................................29

PAGE 5

ii Study 1 Method..................................... ................................................... .....................29 Participants and Procedure......................... ................................................... ............29 Study 1 Results.................................... ................................................... ......................30 Study 1 Discussion................................. ................................................... ....................30 Study 2: Assessing the Factor Structure of the GSMS .................................................32 Study 2 Method..................................... ................................................... .....................32 Participants....................................... ................................................... ......................32 Procedure.......................................... ................................................... .....................34 Study 2 Measures................................... ................................................... ....................34 GSMS............................................... ................................................... ......................34 Study 2 Results.................................... ................................................... ......................34 Factor structure of the MOCBI...................... ................................................... ........35 Factor structure of the MOCBO...................... ................................................... ......38 Confirmatory factor analysis....................... ................................................... ...........41 Study 2 Discussion................................. ................................................... ....................42 Chapter 3: Construct Validation of the GSMS........ ................................................... ......45 Study 3 Background and Hypotheses.................. ................................................... ......45 Regulatory focus................................... ................................................... .................45 Self-identity...................................... ................................................... ......................46 Self-serving traits................................ ................................................... ...................48 Values............................................. ................................................... .......................50 Study 3 Method..................................... ................................................... .....................52 Participants and Procedure......................... ................................................... ............52

PAGE 6

iii Study 3 Measures................................... ................................................... ....................53 Good Soldier Motives Scale (GSMS).................. ................................................... ..53 Regulatory focus................................... ................................................... .................53 Self-identity...................................... ................................................... ......................54 Machiavellianism................................... ................................................... ................54 Self-monitoring.................................... ................................................... ..................55 Values............................................. ................................................... .......................55 Covariates......................................... ................................................... .....................55 Study 3 Results.................................... ................................................... ......................56 Regression Analyses................................ ................................................... ..............59 Regulatory Focus and OCB Motives................... ................................................... ..59 Self-identity and OCB Motives...................... ................................................... .......60 Self-serving Traits and OCB Motives................ ................................................... ....62 Values and OCB Motives............................. ................................................... .........63 Study 3 Discussion................................. ................................................... ....................65 Regulatory Focus and OCB Motives................... ................................................... ..65 Self-identity and OCB Motives...................... ................................................... .......66 Self-serving Traits and OCB Motives................ ................................................... ....67 Values and OCB Motives............................. ................................................... .........67 Chapter 4: Criterion Validation of the GSMS........ ................................................... .......70 Study 4 Background and Hypotheses.................. ................................................... ......70 Study 4 Method..................................... ................................................... .....................74 Participants and Procedure......................... ................................................... ............74

PAGE 7

iv Study 4 Measures................................... ................................................... ....................76 Good Soldier Motives Scale (GSMS).................. ................................................... ..76 Agreeableness...................................... ................................................... ..................77 Conscientiousness.................................. ................................................... ................77 Organizational commitment.......................... ................................................... .........78 Perceived organizational justice................... ................................................... .........78 Perceived organizational support................... ................................................... ........78 Job satisfaction................................... ................................................... ....................79 OCB................................................ ................................................... .......................79 Covariates......................................... ................................................... .....................79 Study 4 Results.................................... ................................................... ......................80 Regression Analyses................................ ................................................... ..............84 GSMS Motives and OCB............................... ................................................... .......84 Relative Importance of Personality, Attitudes, and Motives for Predicting OCB....88 GSMS Motives and OCB Effectiveness................. ..................................................9 4 GSMS and CMS as Predictors of OCB.................. ..................................................9 9 Study 4 Discussion................................. ................................................... ..................101 GSMS Motives and OCB............................... ................................................... .....102 Relative Importance of Personality, Attitudes, and Motives for Predicting OCB..104 GSMS Motives and OCB Effectiveness................. ................................................106 GSMS and CMS as Predictors of OCB.................. ................................................108 Chapter 5: General Discussion...................... ................................................... ...............110 OCB Motives based on Schwartz’s Values Framework... ..........................................110

PAGE 8

v Construct Validity of GSMS......................... ................................................... ...........111 Criterion Validity of GSMS......................... ................................................... ............112 Practical Implications............................. ................................................... ..................113 Limitations........................................ ................................................... .......................114 Future Research Directions......................... ................................................... .............115 Conclusion......................................... ................................................... ......................116 References......................................... ................................................... ...........................117 Appendices......................................... ................................................... ..........................136 Appendix A: Focus Group Questionnaire.............. ................................................... ..137 Appendix B: Items Generated in Study 1............. ................................................... ...142 Appendix C: Demographics Questionnaire............. ................................................... 144 Appendix D: Pilot Good Soldier Motive Scale........ ................................................... 145 Appendix E: Good Soldier Motives Scale (GSMS)...... .............................................153 Appendix F: Regulatory Focus Items................. ................................................... .....155 Appendix G: Self-concept Scale..................... ................................................... .........156 Appendix H: Machiavellianism Scale................. ................................................... ....157 Appendix I: Self-Monitoring Scale.................. ................................................... ........158 Appendix J: Short Schwartz Value Survey............ ................................................... ..159 Appendix K: Citizenship Motives Scale.............. ................................................... ....160 Appendix L: Agreeableness Scale.................... ................................................... .......161 Appendix M: Conscientiousness Scale................ ................................................... ....162 Appendix N: Organizational Commitment.............. ................................................... 163 Appendix O: Organizational Justice Scale........... ................................................... ...164

PAGE 9

vi Appendix P: Survey of Perceived Organizational Supp ort.........................................165 Appendix Q: Job Satisfaction Scale................. ................................................... ........166 Appendix R: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Sca le...........................................167 About the Author................................... ................................................... .............End Page

PAGE 10

vii List of Tables Table 1. Definitions of Schwartz’s (1992) Ten Unive rsal Value Types...........................17 Table 2. Definitions of OCB Motive Types........... ................................................... ........23 Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Likeliho od of OCB Motives......................30 Table 4. Frequency of Represented Industries....... ................................................... ........33 Table 5. Frequency of Hours Worked per Week........ ................................................... ...33 Table 6. Total Variance Explained by the Five Extra cted Factors of the MOCBI Subscale........................................... ................................................... ..............................36 Table 7. Rotated Factor Pattern Matrix of Loadings for the MOCBI Items.....................37 Table 8. Inter-factor Correlations for the MOCBI Su bscale............................................. 38 Table 9. Total Variance Explained by the Five Extra cted Factors of the MOCBO Subscale........................................... ................................................... ..............................38 Table 10. Rotated Pattern Matrix of Loadings for th e MOCBO Items............................40 Table 11. Inter-factor Correlations for the MOCBO S ubscale.........................................41 Table 12. CFA Fit Statistics for MOCBI and MOCBO... .................................................42 Table 13. Frequency of Represented Industries...... ................................................... .......53 Table 14. CFA Fit Statistics for the GSMS.......... ................................................... .........53 Table 15. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations a mong Study 3 Variables...................57

PAGE 11

viii Table 16. Hierarchical Regression for Regulatory Fo cus Correlates and OCB Motives............................................ ................................................... ..............................60 Table 17. Hierarchical Regression for Self-identity Correlates and OCB Motives..........61 Table 18. Hierarchical Regression for Self-serving Traits and OCB Motives.................62 Table 19. Hierarchical Regression for Self-enhance ment Values and OCB Motives............................................ ................................................... ..............................64 Table 20. Hierarchical Regression for Self-transcen dence Values and OCB Motives............................................ ................................................... ..............................64 Table 21. Hierarchical Regression for Schwartz’s Co nservation Values and OCB Motives............................................ ................................................... ..............................65 Table 22. Frequency of Participant Demographic Vari ables............................................76 Table 23. CFA Fit Statistics for the GSMS.......... ................................................... .........77 Table 24. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations a mong Study 4 Variables...................81 Table 25. Hierarchical Regression for OCBI on the M OCBI Subscale...........................85 Table 26. Hierarchical Regression for OCBI on MOCBI Subscale Dimensions.............86 Table 27. Hierarchical Regression for OCBO on the M OCBO Subscale........................87 Table 28. Hierarchical Regression for OCBO on MOCBO Subscale Dimensions..........88 Table 29. Hierarchical Regression for OCBI on Perso nality and MOCBI Subscale Dimensions......................................... ................................................... ...........................90 Table 30. Hierarchical Regression for OCBO on Perso nality and MOCBO Subscale Dimensions......................................... ................................................... ...........................91 Table 31. Hierarchical Regression for OCBI on Attit udes and MOCBI Subscale Dimensions......................................... ................................................... ...........................92

PAGE 12

ix Table 32. Hierarchical Regression for OCBO on Attit udes and MOCBO Subscale Dimensions......................................... ................................................... ...........................93 Table 33. Hierarchical Regression for OCBI Effectiv eness on the MOCBI Subscale........................................... ................................................... ..............................95 Table 34. Hierarchical Regression for OCBI Effectiv eness on MOCBI Subscale Dimensions......................................... ................................................... ...........................96 Table 35. Relative Weights Analysis of the MOCBI Di mensions...................................96 Table 36. Hierarchical Regression for OCBO Effectiv eness on the MOCBO Subscale........................................... ................................................... ..............................97 Table 37. Hierarchical Regression for OCBO Effectiv eness on the MOCBO Subscale........................................... ................................................... ..............................97 Table 38. Relative Weights Analysis of the MOCBO Di mensions..................................99 Table 39. Hierarchical Regression for OCB on the CM S and GSMS First Order.......100 Table 40. Hierarchical Regression for OCB on the CM S and GSMS Second Order.............................................. ................................................... ..............................101

PAGE 13

x List of Figures Figure 1. Schwartz’s (1992, 1994) Values Circumplex ................................................... .19

PAGE 14

xi Are All Good Soldiers Created Equal? Examining the “Why” that Underlies Organizational C itizenship Behavior: The Development of an OCB Motives Scale Anna L. Tolentino Abstract Traditionally, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) have been conceptualized within a social exchange framework, implying that individuals perform citizenship behaviors in response to fair treatment by the organization (Zellars & Tepper, 2003). In accordance with this social exchange fram ework, researchers have identified a number of OCB antecedents, like perceived organizat ional support (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Settoon, Bennet, & Liden, 1996), j ob satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational justice (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995), and leader-member exchange (Connell, 2005; S ettoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne & Greene, 1993). Recently, however, research has shifted from viewing OCB as a reactionary behavior in response to positive attitu des and emotions toward the organization to perceiving OCB as functional (e.g., Finkelstein & Penner, 2004, Rioux & Penner, 2001) – opening the door to exploration of both altruistic as well as self-serving motives to engage in OCB. Applying Schwartz’s (1992 ) values theory and expanding on Rioux and Penner’s (2001) three-dimensional OCB mot ives model, the goal of the proposed research was to identify additional underl ying mechanisms for performing citizenship behaviors through the development and v alidation of the Good Soldier Motives Scale (GSMS). The 46-item scale, consisting of two subscales – (1) motives to

PAGE 15

xii perform OCBI (MOCBI) and (2) motives to perform OCB O (MOCBO) uncovered the following motives – Prosocial Values, Organizationa l Concern and Obligation, Instrumental, Intimacy, Achievement, and Guilt. Con struct validation data revealed significant differential relationships between OCB motive dimensions and established constructs in the literature (i.e., regulatory focu s, self-identity, Machiavellianism, selfmonitoring, and values). Criterion validation resul ts supported the predictive validity of the GSMS subscales with OCBI and OCBO. Furthermore, OCB motives accounted for significant variance beyond that of established att itudinal and personality OCB antecedents, replicating and expanding upon Rioux a nd Penner’s (2001) findings. Lastly, the research took an initial pass at empirically ex amining the impact of motives on the quality of OCB through the assessment of OCB effect iveness. Findings revealed significant differences in OCB effectiveness when c omparing self-enhancing motives versus the more traditional altruistic motives. Est ablishment of a valid, theoreticallyderived OCB motives scale offers researchers an ave nue to further investigate burgeoning research on self-serving motivations for OCB as wel l as altruistic ones. Alternatively, practitioners can leverage the GSMS in a variety of human resource applications, such as performance appraisals and training in order to enh ance the participation in quality OCBs.

PAGE 16

1 Chapter 1: Introduction To remain competitive in today’s work environment, it is imperative that organizations not only select individuals who posse ss the technical skills to perform the job, but also identify those individuals who contri bute to the organization’s success by going above and beyond what their respective job du ties entail. The latter represents organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), or what Organ and his colleagues label as the “good soldier syndrome” in the workplace (Organ, 19 88; Smith, Organ & Near, 1983). Sample behaviors include helping a coworker, offeri ng suggestions for improvement, and adhering to informal work policies. Selecting indiv iduals that engage in these types of behaviors is critical to the success of any organiz ation. Indeed, research supports relationships between OCB and subjective and object ive work outcomes, like performance ratings (e.g., Allen & Rush., 1998; Eas tman, 1994) and productivity (e.g., MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Ahearne, 1998; Podsakoff, A hearne, & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Walz & Niehoff, 1996). Researchers have also identified several OCB antec edents. Attitudinal variables like job satisfaction, organizational commitment, a nd justice (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Moorman, 1991; Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 199 3; Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994; Williams & Anderson, 1991) and personality tr aits like conscientiousness, agreeableness, and positive affectivity (Borman, Pe nner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001;

PAGE 17

2 Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakof f, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000) are important predictors of OCB. Th e underlying mechanisms for the aforementioned attitudinal antecedents are rooted i n social psychology. The first, which is based on social exchange theory (Adams, 1965), p osits that individuals strive for equity and display OCB to reciprocate individuals w ho benefit them (e.g., supervisors or coworkers). Specifically, employees perform OCB in response to the receipt of psychological benefits, like praise and respect, an d tangible benefits, like pay and bonuses. The second explanation stems from the soci al psychology literature on positive affect (Clark & Isen, 1982). According to this pers pective, employees high in job satisfaction, who experience positive affectivity a nd discrete emotions (e.g., happiness) are more likely to engage in OCB compared to their dissatisfied counterparts. There is ample research demonstrating that happy moods elici t prosocial behaviors (e.g., George, 1991; George & Brief, 1992; Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002; Midili, 1995; Williams & Shiaw, 1999). Regarding the underl ying mechanism behind personality antecedents, Organ and Ryan (1995) proposed that ce rtain traits predispose individuals to react in helpful ways towards their coworkers and s upervisors, making it more likely to perform OCB. Recently, however, research has shifted from viewi ng OCB as a reactionary behavior in response to positive attitudes/emotions toward the organization to one that is more proactive and functional (e.g., Finkelstein & Penner, 2004, Rioux & Penner, 2001). Additionally, researchers have suggested that OCB s hould not only be perceived as a purely altruistic act but also as a behavior that b enefits oneself (Bolino, 1999), suggesting that OCB may also be performed for instrumental rea sons (e.g., to obtain a promotion).

PAGE 18

3 Therefore, it is possible that unexplored motivatio nal differences contribute to the performance of OCB. Thus, not every “good soldier” is created equal, highlighting the possibility that Organ’s (1988) concept of the good soldier—one that goes the extra mile for his/her organization—may overlook the fact that OCB can be performed for both selfless and self-serving reasons. Actually, Bolino and his colleagues (2004) suggested assuming OCB as purely altruistic narrows our resea rch focus and neglects alternative explanations for performing these behaviors. The purpose of this study was threefold. First, I developed an OCB motives scale, the Good Soldier Motives Scale (the GSMS), building upon the work of Rioux and Penner (2001) and Schwartz (1992). At this time, Ri oux and Penner’s (2001) Citizenship Motives Scale (CMS) is the only published measure t hat assesses the motives to perform OCB. The authors identified three motives for perfo rming OCB: (1) Prosocial Values (i.e., the desire to assist others), (2) Organizational Concern (i.e., regard for the organization), and (3) Impression Management (i.e., the need for positive evaluations). Though research supports the three-dimensional stru cture of the CMS (Rioux & Penner, 2001) and its prediction of OCB (Finkelstein, 2006; Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; Rioux & Penner, 2001), researchers have proposed additional motives that are not captured by the CMS. For example, motivations arising from the need s for achievement (Niehoff, 2000; Sutton, 2005) and power (Niehoff, 2000), disinteres t in one’s prescribed role, guilt from past work transgressions, dissatisfaction with one’ s personal life (Bolino et al., 2004), felt obligation (Yuanlin, under review), and a mechanism to cope (Zellars & Tepper, 2003) have been suggested to impact the performance of OC B.

PAGE 19

4 The second goal of the present research was to fur ther extend empirical support for motives as unique antecedents of OCB. In partic ular, the present research explored the predictive power of OCB motives beyond those an tecedents that are commonly studied, such as job satisfaction, organizational c ommitment (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000), justice (Ehrhart, 2004; Mo orman, 1991; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998), and personality (e.g., conscientiou sness and agreeableness; Borman et al, 2001; Podsakoff et al., 2000). The motives identifi ed in this study may account for incremental variance in OCB, which improves our und erstanding of these critical behaviors. Lastly, based upon others’ suggestions (e.g., Boli no, 1999; Bolino, Turnley, & Niehoff, 2004; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006) I investigated the impact of motives on the effectiveness of OCB. Typically, OCB is assessed using Likert sc ale ratings of the extent of agreement with or likeliho od of displaying the listed behavior (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Motowidlo & Van Scott er, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983 ; Williams & Anderson, 1991), which captures the frequency of displaying such behaviors. However, OCB frequenc y (or quantity) is not the same as quality, and it is lik ely that the latter has a greater positive impact on the social and psychological contexts at work. Although Bolino and his colleagues suggested that differences in the quality of OCB may arise depending on the type of motive (Bolino, 1999; Bolino, Turnley, & Ni ehoff, 2004), little research has directly assessed the effectiveness of OCB and the impact of various motives on the effectiveness. For example, individuals engaging in OCB for self-serving reasons may be less consistent and perform only those behaviors wi th high visibility to those who control

PAGE 20

5 rewards, potentially resulting in lower quality OCB Alternatively, individuals with altruistic motives may perform higher quality OCB d ue to their genuine interest in performing such behaviors. What follows is a review of the relevant literatur e, beginning with OCB and its key outcomes and antecedents. Next, I formulate pro posed motives for engaging in OCB based upon existing values and needs theories. Last ly, I describe the current study and present hypotheses. Theoretical Background on Organizational Citizenshi p Behavior The concept of OCB dates back to Katz and Kahn’s ( 1966) requirements for organizational effectiveness. According to Katz and Kahn, organizations are effective when individuals are committed, dependable, and par ticipate in voluntary behaviors not formally part of their job descriptions (i.e., OCB) Organ (1988) originally defined OCB as behavior that is “discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes t he effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). Similar constructs have been proposed that resembl e OCB, such as prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992), contextual performance (Borman & Mo towidlo, 1993), and extra-role behavior (Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995). Among these, the most similar is contextual performance. Borman and Motowidlo (1993) divided the work performance domain into task and contextual performance, where task performance includes behaviors associated with employees’ essential job tasks and duties, such as coaching, delegating, and supervising employees for the role of a manager whereas contextual performance

PAGE 21

6 consists of behaviors “that are not directly relate d to their main task but are important because they shape the organizational, social, and psychological context that serves as the critical catalyst for task activities and processes ” (p.71), such as cooperating with team members, volunteering for additional responsibiliti es, and offering to help coworkers with their work. Like OCB, contextual performance c aptures aspects of performance that do not directly relate to job activities formally p rescribed by the organization yet still enhance organizational functioning. As a result, Or gan (1997) redefined OCB to resemble contextual performance and admitted overla p between the two constructs. Dimensionality of OCB. The first empirical studies identified altruism and generalized compliance as the two primary dimension s of OCB (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Altruism represents helping behaviors directed towards members of the organization (Organ, 1988; S mith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Examples of altruism include helping a new coworker acclimate to the company and helping a coworker with a specific job task. Generalized compliance, also known as conscientiousness consists of more practical and less personal cont ributions to the organization, such as arriving to work on time and adhering to company policy (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Organ and his colleagues later expande d the OCB framework to include three additional dimensions– civic virtue sportsmanship and courtesy (1988). Since the introduction of Organ’s (1988) five-facto r model, researchers have conceptually and empirically specified multiple fac tor structures representing the OCB construct domain, ranging from as few as one dimens ion to as many as seven (e.g., Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidl o, 1996; Williams & Anderson, 1991). For example, Williams and Anderson (1991) re fined Organ’s original two-factor

PAGE 22

7 structure of OCB by developing a parallel two-dimen sional typology focusing on the target of the behavior. According to their conceptu alization, OCBI (OCB directed towards individuals) includes behaviors that immedi ately benefit individuals, which parallels Organ’s altruism dimension (i.e., helping coworkers who have been absent). On the other hand, OCBO (OCB directed towards the orga nization) represents behaviors that impact the organization as a whole, similar to Orga n’s (1988) conscientiousness dimension. Behaviors within this category focus on high standards of performance (i.e., coming to work on time, following rules, making eff icient use of work-time). Still, others have argued that OCB is one-dimension al. In particular, LePine, Erez, and Johnson’s (2002) meta-analytic results revealed str ong relationships among Organ’s (1988) five dimensions of OCB (with the exception o f sportsmanship) with average corrected correlations of r = .67. Moreover, the five dimensions did not show differential relationships with various criteria, such as job sa tisfaction, organizational commitment, fairness, conscientiousness, and leader support, fu rther calling into question their separateness. LePine and his colleagues proposed th at OCB should be considered a single latent construct with the dimensions serving as imp erfect indicators for how the construct is behaviorally manifested. Conversely, others (e.g ., Motowidlo, 2000; Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997) support an aggregate model of OCB, suggesting that OCB is a multidimensional construct with each dimension cont ributing uniquely to the conceptualization of the construct and thus, exclud ing one dimension distorts the definition of OCB. Overall, despite equivocal resul ts regarding the number of dimensions and the nature of indicator–construct relationships it does appear that OCB is a multidimensional construct (Motowidlo, 2000).

PAGE 23

8 One criticism of OCB is its presumed positive, aff iliative nature, owing to dimension labels such as “altruism” and “courtesy” (Niehoff, 2000). The names of these dimensions imply that OCB is performed strictly for altruistic reasons and ignore possible self-serving motives. To resolve this issue, Organ (1997) recommended using a neutral conceptualization of OCB, like the aforementioned W illiams and Anderson (1991) typology, which eliminates any assumed connotations by focusing on the target of the behavior. Support for the Williams and Anderson (19 91) factor structure has accrued (Randall, Cropanzano, Borman, & Birjulin, 1999; Tur nley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003). Because the goal of the present study was to develop and validate a measure of OCB motives including both positive and negative re asons, I adopted Williams and Anderson’s OCBI/OCBO framework, eliminating any pot ential positive OCB connotations and presenting a more neutral conceptu alization of OCB by focusing on the target of the behavior. OCB Outcomes While the focus of the present research was to inv estigate the motives that underlie the performance of OCB, I present a brief review of OCB outcomes. Indeed, OCB is important only insofar as it has positive ef fects on organizations and its members and thus, it is necessary to consider the consequen ces of such behavior. Research provides evidence for the influence of OCB on subje ctive and objective performance evaluations (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Paine, 1999; Motowidl o & Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996), unit-level performance and effectiveness (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1 997) and reward allocation

PAGE 24

9 decisions (Allen & Rush, 1998). In particular, rese arch examining the relationship between OCB and performance evaluations indicates t hat OCB accounts for as much variance in overall performance evaluations as task performance (Podsakoff et al., 2000). This finding suggests that managers take into accou nt not only proficiency in task performance but also work behaviors that fall outsi de formal job descriptions. Given that OCB impacts multiple employee and organizational ou tcomes, it is an important aspect of work performance, and one that requires further attention regarding why individuals engage in this type of performance. OCB Antecedents Existing research has examined various antecedents of OCB, from individual difference variables, like personality traits and a ttitudes, to situational variables, like leadership and group cohesiveness (Podsakoff et al. 2000). Identifying predictors of OCB is essential for selecting individuals who are likely to engage in these types of behaviors and for designing and implementing organi zational structures that foster OCB. Because a person-centered approach is taken in the current study, I limit my review to research targeting individual differences that pred ict OCB. The first section reviews extant research on attitude-, personality-, and mot ivation-based predictors, followed by a review of values and needs theories, which serve as the overarching framework for the proposed OCB motives. Attitudes. Attitudinal variables, like job satisfaction, organ izational commitment, justice, and perceived organizational support have received much empirical attention as antecedents of OCB (e.g., Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Dalal, 2005; O’Brien & Allen, in press; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Moreover, attitudinal factors have proven to be

PAGE 25

10 more strongly related to OCB compared to other type s of individual difference antecedents (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Bateman and Organ (1983) initially investigated OC B to explain the lack of empirical support for the job satisfaction–performa nce relationship (see Organ, 1988). They believed that satisfaction was related to the OCB component of job performance. Specifically, individuals experiencing positive aff ective states should be more likely to engage in prosocial, OCB-like behaviors on the job (Bateman & Organ, 1983). One of the first studies on OCB found that satisfaction wa s strongly related to the altruism component of OCB (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). More over, Organ and Ryan’s (1995) meta-analysis found mean corrected correlations of ( r = .28) for both the satisfaction– altruism relationship and the satisfaction–generali zed compliance relationship. In addition to satisfaction, fairness perceptions and organizational commitment are significant attitudinal antecedents of OCB (LeP ine et al., 2002; McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Based on Adams’ (1965) e quity theory, which states that people are driven to attain a status of fairness wh en relating to other people and organizations, employees restore inequitable work s ituations by altering their OCB. Going beyond main effects, research has also found that interpersonal justice (i.e., the receipt of fair treatment) mediates the satisfactio n–OCB relationship (Moorman, 1991). In a recent study, O’Brien and Allen (in press) exa mined predictors of voluntary behaviors, namely OCB and counterproductive work be havior (CWB), and found that the attitudinal variables of job satisfaction, organiza tional support, and organizational justice emerged as the most consistent correlates of OCB an d CWB. In sum, attitudinal antecedents of OCB have been well-supported in the literature.

PAGE 26

11 Personality. A variety of dispositional variables have been inve stigated as potential antecedents of OCB. Conscientiousness, on e of the Big Five factors of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992), has received co nsistent support in the literature (e.g., Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001; Hu rtz & Donovan, 2000; Organ & Ryan, 1995). In their meta-analysis of personality and OCB, Organ and Ryan (1995) found that conscientiousness was the only significa nt predictor of OCB and concluded, perhaps prematurely, that the relationship between personality and OCB was weak. However, in response to Organ and Ryan’s conclusion s, Borman, Penner, Allen, and Motowidlo (2001) reviewed twenty additional studies that investigated conscientiousness in addition to locus of control, collectivism, pers onal initiative, and prosocial personality. Their findings showed stronger relationships betwee n conscientiousness and OCB, more so than those of Organ and Ryan. Furthermore, Borma n et al.’s analysis of a subset of the studies suggested that conscientiousness correlates more strongly with OCB than with task performance. Paralleling Borman et al.’s findi ngs, Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) found significant relationships between the altruism dimension of OCB and the personality variables of conscientiousness ( r = .22), agreeableness ( r = .13), and positive affectivity ( r = .15). Additionally, they also identified signifi cant relationships between the generalized compliance dimension of OCB and the personality variables of conscientiousness ( r = .30), agreeableness ( r = .11), and negative affectivity ( r = -.12). O’Brien and Allen (in press) demonstrated that the personality variables of conscientiousness, trait anger, and locus of contro l were the most supported correlates of OCB and CWB. Taken together, personality has a stro nger influence on OCB than what was previously reported (e.g., Organ & Ryan, 1995).

PAGE 27

12 Motivation. Research has established the validity of attitudina l and personality variables as predictors of OCB. As mentioned above, there has been a movement towards perceiving OCB as a proactive, functional behavior used to satisfy individual needs and goals. Some work has already been devoted to identi fying OCB motives. Research by Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo, and Borman (1998) sugges ts that the perceived instrumental value for engaging in OCB behaviors may affect the personality predictors associated with OCB. For example, they found ambition was impo rtant in jobs containing the possibility of promotion, whereas conscientiousness was significant when promotional opportunities were absent. In another study, Finkel stein and Penner (2004), measuring OCB motives directly, found that Prosocial Values m otives were more strongly related to OCBI, while Organizational Concern motives were mor e strongly related to OCBO (see also Finkelstein, 2006; Rioux & Penner, 2001). Alon g these lines, employees engaging in OCB out of a concern for others were more likely to exhibit aspects of contextual performance that help others (e.g., altruism). In c ontrast, employees with the goal of demonstrating commitment to the organization engage d in OCB that helped the organization directly (e.g., conscientiousness). Im pression management motives were also found to be related to OCB, but specifically t o OCBI rather than OCBO (Finkelstein, 2006). The predictive validity of OCB motives beyond esta blished OCB antecedents has also been assessed. Rioux and Penner’s (2001) resea rch found that the Prosocial Values and Organizational Concern dimension of their CMS s cale accounted for unique variance beyond organizational (distributive and procedural justice) and personality variables (positive mood, other-oriented empathy, and helpful ness). Little support was found for

PAGE 28

13 the Impression Management dimension. However, suppo rt for the other two dimensions suggests that motives play a significant role and t hat employees perform OCB for different reasons. In addition, research has investigated motives as potential mediators of established relationships involving OCB. For exampl e, Connell and Penner’s (2004) study is one of the first attempts at establishing a connection between personality and OCB motives. They found that the Organizational Con cern motives partially mediated the effects of conscientiousness on the OCB dimensi on of generalized compliance. Both Organizational Concern and Prosocial Values motives partially mediated the relationship between other-oriented empathy (a factor of prosoci al personality) and altruism. Moreover, Prosocial Values motives partially mediat ed the relationship between otheroriented empathy and the generalized compliance dim ension of OCB. The results of their study provide initial support for the mediating rol e of OCB motives between personality and OCB. In sum, these findings highlight motives a s key predictors of OCB and that various motives moderate and mediate relationships between OCB and its antecedents. Despite this preliminary work though, additional mo tives for performing OCB may exist. Motivation to Perform OCB A starting point for investigating alternative OCB motives is to consider them within the framework of basic human needs and value s. Needs theories of motivation suggest that individuals are motivated to engage in behaviors based on the fulfillment of specific needs (Alderfer, 1969; Maslow, 1954; Reeve 2005). By adopting a functional perspective, OCB can be perceived as a means to sat isfy specific needs (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997). For example, employees with hi gh need for achievement

PAGE 29

14 (McClelland, 1961) are driven by challenge and comp etition and thus, may perform OCB to satisfy their need to excel in the workplace. Values are beliefs and guidelines, based on normative sta ndards, for conscious decisions about behavior in specific situations (Sc hwartz, 1992). What differentiates one value from the next is its motivational content (Bi lsky & Schwartz, 1994). They are similar to needs in that they can direct and sustai n behavior. However, unlike the inherent nature of needs, values are formalized through pers onal experience. Additionally, values are more proximal to actual behaviors than are need s. In relation to OCB, McNeely and Meglino (1994) found that a concern for others valu e predicted prosocial behaviors directed towards individuals. Thus, values potentia lly play a critical role in predicting OCB performance. There are several advantages of examining motivati onal predictors of OCB rather than personality and attitudinal ones. First, motivational variables are more conducive to being manipulated Knowing which motives, needs, and values are impo rtant to individuals provides practitioners with information on how to adjust situational factors to elicit OCB. For example, organizations can cater to individuals with achievement motivation values by offering professional developm ent and training opportunities. Conversely, attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) and p ersonality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1989; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000) are relatively mo re stable and more difficult (perhaps impossible) to alter. Rather than selectin g individuals with certain personality or attitudinal characteristics that are associated wit h OCB, organizations can instead manipulate the work context to increase such behavi ors.

PAGE 30

15 Second, motives are evaluative and account for why a person behaves in a particular manner Personality, on the other hand, is descriptive, d escribing actions and ignoring intentions and volitional processing. Thus motives are better suited as predictors of behavior because individuals make con scious decisions based on the alignment of their actions to their motives. Lastly, motives mediate the effects of more distal, stable constructs (i.e., personality) on performance (e.g., Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002; Conne ll & Penner, 2004). While personality has been conceptua lized as influencing performance largely through an individual’s level of motivation (e.g., Kanfer, 1991; Mount & Barrick, 1995), little research exists testing this mechanis m and no formal motivational process model exists. To enhance our understanding of the p ersonality–performance relationship, Barrick and his colleagues (2001) proposed integrat ing three primary motivational constructs (i.e., communion striving, accomplishmen t striving, and status striving) as motivational mediators explaining the personality-p erformance relationship. Subsequent research has supported this relationship (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002). Thus, motives in effect are more proximal predictors of p erformance, and should be measured when examining antecedents of OCB. Along these line s, motives may provide a mechanism to explain the inconsistent relationships between various personality traits and OCB. In general, understanding motives offers a connection between individual difference variables and behavioral outcomes. Altogether, examining the motivational constructs that underlie the expression of OCB is perhaps more useful than simply examining pe rsonality and attitudinal antecedents. Furthermore, motivational constructs c larify why personality is related to

PAGE 31

16 OCB and provide an initial process model for unders tanding the occurrence of OCB. The following section introduces Schwartz’s (1992) valu es theory, which serves as a framework for the OCB motives measure that I develo ped. Schwartz Values Theory Values represent an individual’s “trans-situationa l goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in the life of a p erson or a group” (Schwartz & Rubel, 2005, p. 1010). In essence, values serve as prescri ptions for behavior that are aligned with our individual belief systems. Schwartz’s values th eory identifies a set of ten universal values based on the motivational concern embedded w ithin each value (see Table 1). Furthermore, these values are arranged in a circump lex, such that compatible values, like power and achievement, are adjacent to one another, while conflicting values, like selfdirection and security, reside on opposite ends of the circumplex (see Figure 1). Thus, behaviors driven by one value simultaneously compet e and work in conjunction with other value-driven behaviors.

PAGE 32

17 Table 1. Definitions of Schwartz’s (1992) Ten Universal Valu e Types Schwartz’s model also suggests the presence of fou r higher-order motivational dimensions (Rohan, 2000). Additionally, each of the ten universal values is subsumed under one of the four higher-order dimensions. The first, self-enhancement involves doing what is best for one’s own success compared t o others (Rohan & Zanna, 2001). Achievement, power, and hedonism values are included in the self-enhancement dimension given that they focus on promoting one’s own self interests. The second dimension, self-transcendence involves making choices based on what is best for the group. Universalism and benevolence values fall within the self-transcendence dimensio n because they are concerned more with the social con text rather than the self. The third Value Type Definition Selfenhancement Hedonism* Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself Achievement Personal success through demonstrating competence a ccording to social standards Power Social status and prestige, control or dominance ov er people and resources Selftranscendence Universalism Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protect ion for the welfare of all people and for nature Benevolence Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of peop le with whom one is in frequent personal contact Openness to Change Self-direction Independent thought and action – choosing, creating exploring Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life Conservation Conformity Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses li kely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations of norm s Tradition Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide Security Safety, harmony, and stability of society and relat ionships Note: The Hedonism dimension falls within the Sel f-enhancement and Openness to Change

PAGE 33

18 and fourth dimensions, openness to change and conservation stem from a regulatory focus principle, the idea that individuals either s trive for desired accomplishments (promotion focus) or individuals strive to maintain safety and avoid negative outcomes (prevention focus; Higgins, 1997). Likewise, indivi duals are motivated either through their desire to achieve goals and attain rewards (o penness to change) or by their fear of failure and focus on avoiding competitive situation s involving a risk for failure (conservation). Self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism values represent the openness to change dimension, due to their approach motivation nature where challenge and change are welcome in an effort to attain self-set goals. In contrast, the values of tradition, conformity, and security encompass the conservation dimension, reflecting a n avoidant motivation where fear of failure is the main driver (Note that hedonism cross-loads on both the self-enhancement and openness to change di mensions.) Using alternative statistical analytic techniques (i.e., covariance structure modeling and factor analysis), Lord, Hall, Naidoo, and Selenta (2004) replicated Schwartz’s (1992) circumplex model, finding support for the ten value types as well as Schwartz’s higher-order dimensions. Research also i ndicates that the nature and structure of the ten value types are universal across culture s. For example, individuals from different cultures assign similar meanings to the t en universal values (Schwartz, 1992).

PAGE 34

19 Figure 1. Schwartz’s (1992, 1994) Values Circumplex Note : Hedonism cross-loads on the openness to change an d self-enhancement dimensions. Interestingly, the four higher-order value dimensi ons correspond to two selfregulatory variables, specifically self-identity an d regulatory focus. Self-identity represents an individual’s collection of self-relev ant schemas, values, goals, memories, and knowledge (Lord & Brown, 2004; Markus & Wurf, 1 987; Oyserman, 2001). An individual’s self-identity can exist at three level s: individual, relational, and collective. Those who define their identity at the individual level compare themselves with others, emphasize their individuality, and promote their se lf-interests. Relational individuals focus on developing relationships with others and d efine themselves based on the quality of their interpersonal interactions. Collective individuals identify with their group Universalism SelfDirection Benevolence Stimulation Hedonism Achievement Power Security Tradition Conformity Selftranscendenc e Conservation Openness to change Selfenhancement

PAGE 35

20 memberships and tend to be more concerned with the welfare of the group (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Lord and Brown (2001) posited that values influenc e identity levels. According to their model, self-enhancement values activate indiv idual identities and inhibit collective ones. In contrast, self-transcendence values trigge r collective identities and suppress individual identities. Lord and his colleagues (200 4) empirically tested this framework and found relationships between self-enhancement va lues and individual identities. In effect, individuals focused on differentiating them selves from others also advocated more self-serving values. Their findings also suggested relationships between conservation and openness to change values with relational identitie s. Individuals focused on maintaining social norms (i.e., conservation) and preserving th e status quo do so in order to maintain relationships with close others (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). Therefore, if the concern for individuals with conservation values is to maintain secure interpersonal relationships, it is more likely these individuals will define themselve s based on these relationships. On the other hand, though individuals focused on personal achievements (i.e., openness to change) are self-focused, they still may require th e assistance of others to attain these personal goals, suggesting that maintaining effecti ve relationships is to their advantage. Thus, individuals adopting openness to change value s may perceive their interpersonal relationships as a means to an end and, in turn, ma y also adopt a relational identity. An additional key aspect of self-identity is its t emporal nature. More specifically, only one identity level can be activated at a time, suggesting that the relative importance of values will coincide with shifts in activated id entity levels (Lord & Brown, 2004). An individual’s identity level that is currently activ ated is known as the working self-concept

PAGE 36

21 (WSC; Markus & Kunda, 1986), whereas the chronic se lf-concept depicts the average importance an individual assigns to all three ident ity levels over time. Consequently, an individual with a chronic relational identity may b e exposed to a particular situation that triggers a collective level orientation (e.g., atte nding a company sponsored charity event or playing on the company’s softball team). Thus, t he type of work context may potentially play an integral role in activating spe cific identity levels that, in turn, elicit shifts in values and possibly the motives underlyin g OCB. Overall, it is important to recognize and identify which values and identity le vels are aligned with one another because they may work in tandem when establishing r easons for why individuals participate in OCB. Similar to self-identity, regulatory foci variable s shift over time depending on situational characteristics and events (Higgins, 19 98). Regulatory theory identifies differences in strategies for goal attainment (Higg ins, 1997). Promotion focused individuals are motivated by the presence of positi ve outcomes, such as the attainment of aspirations and accomplishments, while prevention focused individuals are driven by the absence of negative outcomes with an emphasis on re sponsibility and safety. Due to the dynamic nature, regulatory foci have the potential to be primed, and, as a result, may influence values and OCB motives. In fact, ample la b-based research by Higgins and his colleagues demonstrate the possibility of eliciting promotion and prevention focus (e.g., Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004; Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2001; Spiegel, GrantPillow, & Higgins, 2004). Like self-identity, aspe cts of the work environment may influence regulatory foci, and, subsequently, expla in shifts in values and OCB motives.

PAGE 37

22 Values within the work context. Preliminary evidence supports values influencing behavior within the work domain. Ros, Schwartz, and Surkiss (1999) applied Schwartz’s values theory to the work context and found support for four basic types of work values (intrinsic, extrinsic, social, and prestige values) Similar to Schwartz’s universal values, work values function in response to desired end goa ls, and their relative importance serve as guidelines for evaluating and deciding how to ac t in different work situations. Moreover, the four work value types parallel Schwar tz’s four higher-order dimensions. For instance, intrinsic work values reflect openness to change values with a focus on autonomy, growth, and creativity at work, the part of the job that exemplifies an approach orientation. Conversely, extrinsic work values coincide with conservation values, emphasizing job security and income, aspects of the job that contribute to feelings of safety and security. Social work values emulate self-transcendence values wher e individuals perceive work as a means for establishi ng social relationships. Lastly, prestige work values mirror self-enhancement values based o n their shared concerned for power, influence, and achievement at work (Ros et a l., 1999). In general, Ros and colleagues provide introductory support for the app lication of Schwartz’s values theory within work contexts. Integrating OCB Motives with Values. Based on the above review, Schwartz’s values model provides a nice framework for organizi ng various motives that underlie OCB (see Table 2). Furthermore, prior research offe rs support for values as significant predictors of OCB. For example, work values of hard work and discipline—those associated with a Protestant work ethic—are positiv ely related to OCB, suggesting that individuals who value hard work also value helping fellow employees (Ryan, 2002).

PAGE 38

23 Similarly, achievement values are related to OCB (N euman & Kickul, 1998). According to Schwartz, achievement values describe individual s who demonstrate success based on social standards, implying that the salience of thi s value may motivate individuals to engage in socially favored behaviors (e.g., OCB) to reach their goals. The following section is organized around the four higher-order d imensions of self-enhancement, selftranscendence, openness to change, and conservation which are used as a metaframework for classifying potential motives for eng aging in OCB. Within each dimension, I introduce and define specific motives that comprise the dimension. Table 2. Definitions of OCB Motive Types Self-enhancement. The self-enhancement dimension includes values foc used on promoting one’s own success in relation to others. Motives falling within this dimension are characterized as self-serving and include Achie vement, Power, Impression Management, and Instrumental motives. Individuals w ho value achievement excel and Motive Type Definition Selfenhancement Instrumental the focus on attaining self-gratification through r ewards Achievement the need to excel and attain goals Power the desire to control others and/or resources Impression Management the desire to present a favorable image to others Selftranscendence Organizational Concern the focus on success for the organization Prosocial Values the desire to help others Intimacy the desire to build quality relationships Openness to Change Autonomy the desire for control over one’s actions Competency the desire to exercise one’s abilities Conservation Guilt the feeling of responsibility for a past offense Felt obligation the feeling of a sense of duty directed towards the organization Affiliation the desire for security and belonging

PAGE 39

24 strive for attainment of goals. They are motivated by career advancement (Judge & Bretz, 1992), and, subsequently, use OCB as a method to ac complish tasks and achieve success within the organization. For instance, individuals may participate in professional development training, offer process improvement sug gestions, or help a coworker as a means to achieve both self and organizational succe ss. Individuals with Achievement motives are driven to get work done and proactively engage in activities that increase the likelihood of task accomplishment (Niehoff, 2000). Individuals, who value power seek control and dominance over other people or resources (McClelland, 1961), and partake in OCB to attain this control. For instance, an employee may volunteer to lead a quality improvemen t initiative in order to influence fellow coworkers and make significant decisions reg arding allocation of resources. Not unlike Achievement motives, individuals high in Pow er motives are focused on one’s own career goals and recognize OCB as a means to ac hieve them (Niehoff, 2000). Moreover, individuals with Power motives may also d isplay OCB to portray a favorable image and partake in behaviors that have greater vi sibility in an effort to gain recognition from individuals in control of organizational rewar ds. Another motive within the self-enhancement dimensi on, Impression Management overlaps with both Achievement and Power motives. A chievement is defined in terms of seeking success through competence according to soc ial standards. Defining success in terms of what is socially prescribed implies some f orm of impression management. Impression Management motives are also embedded wit hin Power motives. Individuals with high power needs portray favorable images as a means to reap the rewards and climb the social ladder. Consequently, individuals may engage in OCB for the mere fact

PAGE 40

25 of presenting socially-desirable images to others. Indeed, research has found a positive relationship between impression management tactics and OCB ratings (Bolino, Varela, Bande, & Turnley, 2006). Individuals with Instrumental motives, the last type of self-enhancement motive, focus on attaining self-gratification through rewar ds, such as pay and promotions. They perform OCB because of the anticipated economic rew ards associated with it (e.g., mentoring a direct report because it will lead to a promotion). Indeed, research suggests individuals perceiving OCB as instrumental exhibit reduced levels of OCB after receipt of a promotion (Hui, Lam, & Law, 2000), demonstrati ng the performance of OCB for the sole purpose of the promotion. In total, motives be longing under the self-enhancement dimension are focused strictly on advancement of th e self and include Achievement, Power, Impression Management, and Instrumental moti ves. Self-transcendence. The self-transcendence dimension is concerned with social context outcomes, such as the welfare of others. Mo tives belonging to this dimension are focused on interpersonal relationships, and include Organizational Concern, Prosocial Values, and Intimacy motives. Organizational Concern motives (Rioux & Penner, 2001), as described previously, center on the success of t he organization. Individuals participating in OCB for these reasons are more lik ely to display organizational support type behaviors, like promoting the organization to outsiders, or suggesting improvements to benefit the entire organization. Prosocial Values (Rioux & Penner, 2001) and Intimacy motives focus on the desire to help others and buil d quality relationships. Individuals are motivated to participate in OCB to enrich and estab lish meaningful work relationships. Moreover, they are more likely to provide emotional support, offer suggestions to the

PAGE 41

26 work group, and pass on their knowledge and skills to fellow coworkers. In sum, selftranscendence motives target the social context and encompass Organizational Concern, Prosocial Values, and Intimacy motives. Openness to change. The openness to change dimension embodies an appro achoriented type of motivation where individuals are m otivated to take risks and embrace change in order to achieve their self-set goals. Au tonomy and Competence motives are included in this dimension. Individuals with Autonomy motives desire decision-making authority and control over their actions, an approa ch-oriented drive needed to satisfy intellectual and emotional interests. Individuals w ith Autonomy motives may volunteer to engage in OCB to afford them the freedom to make de cisions especially when formal job requirements limit their sense of autonomy. For ins tance, employees may voluntarily start a department newsletter because it provides them wi th decision-making flexibility and task control. In a similar vein, Competence motives represent the approach-oriented desire to exercise one’s abilities and seek out cha llenges (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This suggests that individuals participate in OCB to acq uire a sense of mastery over a skill and are more likely to exhibit OCB geared towards selfdevelopment. For instance, individuals may take on extra assignments to satisf y their hunger for challenge. Overall, openness to change motives are distinguished by the ir focus on the pursuit of one’s own interests and goals. Conservation. The conservation dimension is imbued with avoidanc e motivation, such that it involves the fear of failure and the s trong need to uphold traditions and submit to others. Motives that reflect conservation values are affiliation, guilt, and felt obligation. Affiliation motives are rooted in the fear of interpersonal re jection, where

PAGE 42

27 individuals are driven to establish, maintain, and restore interpersonal relationships (Reeve, 2005). Within the work context, individuals with Affiliative motives perform OCB to serve and help others (Niehoff, 2000). For e xample, an employee may agree to do favors for coworkers in an effort to increase fr iendships. Researchers have suggested that individuals may use OCB as a coping mechanism to establish secure social support networks (Zellars & Tepper, 2003). Furthermore, ind ividuals driven by Affiliation motives practice more personal support types of OCB They cooperate with others, help others with work tasks, and show genuine courtesy a nd respect to others. Like Affiliation, Guilt and Felt Obligation (Bolin o et al., 2004) reflect conservation motives based on an avoidant-oriented characteristic. Individuals with Guilt motives may partake in OCB based on guilt for past transgr essions or fear of punishment. For example, an individual may volunteer extra hour s on a project for taking excessive sick days. Alternatively, individuals motivated by Felt Obligation motives perform OCB out of a sense of duty. In summary, motives that ma ke up the conservation dimension are characterized by their adherence to tradition and n eed for security and include Affiliation, Guilt, and Felt Obligation motives. Scale Development and Validation Using past research and Schwartz’s values as a gui de, the Good Soldier Motives Scale (GSMS) was developed in multiple phases. Phas e 1 consisted of focus groups (i.e., Study 1) and item administration (i.e., Study 2). F ocus groups were conducted to generate reasons for participating in OCB and to identify th e likelihood of a priori OCB motive dimensions. Items were then administered to a sampl e of employed students to further refine the scale. With the finalization of the GSMS the purpose of Phase 2 was to

PAGE 43

28 validate the GSMS by establishing construct and cri terion-related validity. Therefore, Study 3 investigated the relationships between OCB motives and variables that uniquely related to various motives (i.e., construct validat ion), while Study 4 examined the relationships between OCB motives and actual measur es of OCB (i.e., criterion-related validation). The following chapters present detaile d methodology and results for each study, concluding with a general discussion.

PAGE 44

29 Chapter 2: Pilot Study of the Good Soldier Motives Scale Study 1: Development of OCB Motive Dimensions The purpose of Study 1 was to confirm the likeliho od of a priori OCB motives based on past research and Schwartz’s model in addi tion to developing additional motives not already covered by the framework. Focus groups were conducted and items were developed for the GSMS based on information ga thered from the focus groups and existing research. A sample of subject matter exper ts (SMEs) were then asked to re-sort the initial set of items into one of the 12 motive dimensions as well as identifying any problems with the item wording. Study 1 Method Participants and Procedure. Focus groups, consisting of groups of three to five individuals, were conducted using a total of 22 par ticipants from a large southeastern university in the US. Of these participants, 18 wer e female and 3 were male, and worked at least 20 hours per week. Focus groups were appro ximately one hour long and consisted of semi-structured group interviews where individua ls responded to a set of open-ended questions used to generate reasons for OCB (see App endix A). Additionally, participants were also asked to indicate the extent of agreement that the a priori OCB motives are reasons for exhibiting OCB.

PAGE 45

30 Study 1 Results Focus group discussions revealed that participants offered reasons for participating in OCB that coincided with the propos ed 12 motive types. Some sample responses included “to look dependable to managers and coworkers” (Impression Management), “to build positive relationships” (Int imacy), and “to bring more business to my organization” (Organizational Concern). Table 3 displays the means and standard deviations of participants’ responses on items that surveyed the plausibility of the a priori motives for performing OCB. Results suggested that guilt was the least likely motive to perform OCB, whereas Prosocial Values was the most likely one. Although participants rated guilt as the least likely reason to perform O CB, items were developed for this motive to test the full proposed framework of motiv es. Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Likelihood of OCB Motives Study 1 Discussion This study provided me with an extensive list of r easons why workers are believed to perform OCBs. I leveraged this knowledg e, as well as information from OCB Motive Mean SD Prosocial Values 4.36 0.58 Competence 4.27 0.55 Power 4.05 0.72 Impression Management 3.82 0.85 Instrumental 3.73 1.24 Felt Obligation 3.68 0.72 Organizational Concern 3.64 0.73 Achievement 3.55 1.14 Autonomy 3.32 1.00 Affiliation 3.18 1.05 Intimacy 3.09 1.02 Guilt 2.41 1.18 Note: M otives are ordered according to decreasing likeliho od of performing OCB for that reason.

PAGE 46

31 previous research (e.g., Neuman & Kickul, 1998) and existing measures (e.g., Rioux & Penner, 2001), in order to develop items. Items rep resenting the twelve proposed OCB motives were developed and written according to acc epted standards in scale development (e.g., Crocker & Algina, 1986; Spector, 1992). For example, I wrote items that were clear and concise and avoided the use of double negatives and double-barreled items (Spector, 1992). Researchers recommend one an d a half to two times as many items as the final version of the scale should be develop ed for the initial item pool when constructing a new measure (Allen & Yen, 1979; Nunn ally, 1978). Therefore, applying these guidelines, it was anticipated that 54 to 72 items would be needed because my goal was to have 3-5 items per motive. In the end, 67 OC B motive items were created. Once the items were written, 12 subject matter exp erts (SMEs), who were all industrial-organizational psychology doctoral stude nts, resorted individual items back into the 12 OCB motive dimensions. Each SME was giv en a description of the main purpose of the GSMS and definitions for each type o f motive. They were instructed to assign each item to one of the 12 OCB motive dimens ions or place the item into a miscellaneous category if they felt it did not fit into any of the given dimensions. Additionally, SMEs were asked to identify items tha t they believed were awkwardly worded or unclear. Items that were correctly resort ed by the majority of the SMEs were retained.1 Of the original 67 items, 22 were deleted, 3 ite ms were revised, and 12 new items were created, resulting in a total of 57 item s that were included in Study 2. The OCB motive dimensions (and number of items) were as follows: Achievement (5 items), Affiliation (3), Autonomy (4), Competence (5), Felt Obligation (6), Guilt (6), Impression 1 On average, retained items were correctly sorted b y 80% of the SMEs.

PAGE 47

32 Management (5), Instrumental (4), Intimacy (5), Org anizational Concern (5), Power (4), and Prosocial Values (5) (items are listed in Appen dix B). Study 2: Assessing the Factor Structure of the GSMS The goal of Study 2 was to assess the psychometric properties of the OCB motive items. Since there is little research on the exact dimensionality of OCB motives, the initial set of GSMS items were subjected to an expl oratory factor analysis (EFA). Moreover, researchers suggest that EFA may be neces sary for scale development even if a priori expectations exist, reasoning that these expectati ons, although based on theory, may be incorrect (Henson & Roberts, 2006). To confi rm the factor structure of the scale, the EFA was followed by a confirmatory factor analy sis (CFA) on data collected from a separate sample. Study 2 Method Participants. Usable data were collected from a total of 462 empl oyed participants enrolled in undergraduate Psychology c ourses at a large university in the Southeastern US. Students received extra credit in exchange for participating. The majority of the sample was female (79%) with an ave rage age of 22.3 years ( sd = 4.4). Participants represented a variety of racial/ethnic groups, including White non-Hispanic (61.3%), Black non-Hispanic (13.6%), Hispanic (15.4 %), and Asian/Pacific Islander (4.8%). The majority of the participants were in no n-managerial positions (86.1%) from a wide range of industries (see Table 4). The average tenure was 20.4 months ( sd = 21.8). Table 5 presents the sample’s breakdown of hours wo rked per week. To test the generalizability of the factor structure of the GSM S, the 462 participants were classified

PAGE 48

33 based on whether they were full-time employees (i.e ., individuals who work more than 20 hours per week) or part-time ones (i.e., individual s who work 20 hours per week or less). An EFA was conducted on the data provided by part-t ime employees ( N = 181) in order to determine the factor structure of the GSMS. Foll owing the EFA, a CFA was conducted on the data provided by the full-time workers ( N = 281) in order to verify the factor structure that emerged from the initial EFA. Table 4. Frequency of Represented Industries Table 5. Frequency of Hours Worked per Week Industry Frequency Percent Retail 95 20.56 Other 78 16.88 Service 71 15.37 Hospitality 61 13.20 Medical/Social Service 47 10.17 Financial Services 316.71 Education 286.06 Entertainment 194.11 Technology 112.38 Manufacturing 61.30 Government 51.08 Communications 40.87 Unemployed 40.87 Military 20.43 Total 462100.00 Hours Worked Per Week Frequency Percent Less than 10 234.98 10 to 20 hours 13529.22 21 to 30 hours 16535.71 31 to 40 hours 9119.70 More than 40 255.41 I do not work 234.98 Total 462100.00

PAGE 49

34 Procedure. Participants completed either a paper-and-pencil ve rsion of the GSMS (15.6%) or an online version of the survey that was on a paid survey-hosting website (84.4%). The order of presentation of the two GSMS subscales was counterbalanced so as to control for order effects and participant fat igue. Study 2 Measures GSMS. Respondents were asked to rate the relative importa nce of each motive when performing OCB directed toward their coworkers (i.e., MOCBI subscale) and OCB directed toward the organization (i.e., MOCBO subsc ale), resulting in a total of 114 items (57 each). Instructions for the two subscales provi ded a general explanation of OCB and several behavioral examples of either OCBI or OCBO. Participants responded to each item using a 6-point Likert response scale (from 1 = “Not at all important” to 6 = “Extremely important”). Information about the facto r structure and reliability of each subscale are presented below. Study 2 Results Though a four-dimensional higher-order factor struc ture was expected because the GSMS was developed from Schwartz’s (1992) fourdimensional value circumplex, his framework served only as a guiding heuristic to organize and develop various OCB motives. Therefore, I did not have any concrete a priori expectations about the number of factors that would emerge. For instance, values per taining to impression management and instrumental concerns might emerge as one factor or two related ones. The number of factors may also vary if some motives are deemed ir relevant to OCB by participants.

PAGE 50

35 Factor structure of the MOCBI. The 57 MOCBI subscale items were factor analyzed using principal axis factoring and a Proma x rotation (Hendrickson & White, 1964). As advised by Henson and Roberts (2006), mul tiple factor retention rules were conducted to identify the number of factors to reta in. Based on the eigenvalue > 1 rule (Kaiser, 1960; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), the EFA on the 57 MOCBI items resulted in a ten-factor solution. Eigenvalues for the first el even factors were 1 = 18.77, 2 = 7.00, 3 = 2.96, 4 = 2.60, 5 = 2.03, 6 = 1.53, 7 = 1.41, 8 = 1.26, 9 = 1.10, 10 = 1.03, and 11 = .93. However, the eigenvalue rule has been critic ized for overextracting factors (Zwick & Velicer, 1986) and thus, a scree test (Cattell, 1 966) and parallel analysis (PA; Horn, 1965; Turner, 1998) were also performed. Looking fo r the natural break, the scree plot suggested that five factors best explained the data Yet, this method suffers from subjectivity and ambiguity, especially when there a re no clear breaks in the scree plot. Thus, a PA was also conducted. Research suggests th at PA is one of the most accurate methods (Zwick & Velicer, 1986), yet it is one of t he least employed (Henson & Roberts, 2006). Results from the PA indicated a five-factor solution. Based on the scree plot and PA, five factors should be retained. To provide a “ cleaner” pattern structure, bad items (i.e., items with high crossloadings or low loading s) were deleted and the EFA was repeated. Then, to reduce administration time and i mprove the practicality of the GSMS in applied settings, the MOCBI subscale was reduced to a maximum of five items per dimension based on multiple criteria—item-to-total correlations, alpha-if-item deleted (within dimensions) in addition to a consideration of factor loadings, resulting in 23 final items representing the five MOCBI dimensions.

PAGE 51

36 An EFA using principal axis factoring with a Proma x rotation was conducted for a third time on the 23 final MOCBI items. Examinati on of the eigenvalues, factor loadings, and scree plot indicated a five-factor st ructure, explaining 73.63% of the variance (see Table 6). Table 6. Total Variance Explained by the Five Extracted Fact ors of the MOCBI Subscale The first MOCBI factor corresponded to Prosocial Values motives (see Table 7). Paralleling Rioux and Penner’s (2001) Prosocial Val ues dimension, individuals are driven by the need to help their coworkers. The sec ond MOCBI factor reflected Intimacy motives where individuals perform OCB based on thei r desires to establish, maintain, and restore relationships with others (Niehoff, 2000). Factor three represented Organizational Concern and Obligation motives. Similar to Rioux and Penner’s (2001) Organ izational Concern motive dimension but with an obligation com ponent, this motive describes individuals performing OCBs because they feel they “owe” it to their organizations. The fourth MOCBI factor consisted of Instrumental motives. All items within this dimension shared the desire for extrinsic rewards, like posit ive performance ratings, raises, promotions, and recommendations. The final MOCBI fa ctor corresponded to Guilt motives. Individuals perform OCB based on self-perc eptions of not putting forth their best effort. Table 8 presents inter-factor correlat ions and reliabilities. Factor Total% Variance Cumulative % Total% Variance Cumulative % 1 8.19 35.60 35.607.85 34.15 34.15 2 3.82 16.59 52.193.52 15.30 49.45 3 1.868.0860.271.536.6556.10 4 1.677.2567.511.355.8861.98 5 1.416.1273.631.084.6966.67 Initial Eigenvalues Extracted Sums of Squared Loadings

PAGE 52

37 Table 7. Rotated Factor Pattern Matrix of Loadings for the M OCBI Items MOCBI Item Apriori Motive Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4Factor 5 Because I care about other's feelings. PSV .86 Because I feel it is important to help others. PSV .83 Because I genuinely like helping people. PSV .78 Because I believe in being polite to others. PSV .78 Because I have empathy for those who need help. PSV .78 To build trusting relationships. INT .87 To establish meaningful friendships with my colleag ues. INT .86 To build a social support system at work. AFF .82 To build positive relationships with my colleagues. INT .73 To get to know my coworkers better. INT .67 So my organization will be successful. ORG .85 To increase the profitability of the organization. ORG .81 Because I owe it to my organization. FOB .80 Because I feel a personal obligation to help my com pany achieve its goals. FOB .74 To give the organization a good reputation. ORG .68 To increase my likelihood of getting a raise and/or promotion. INS .88 To look good to others (e.g., my supervisor; my cow orkers). IMP .75 To make more money. INS .70 To look dependable to my supervisor and/or coworker s. IMP .66 For a good recommendation. INS .62 To make up for not pulling my weight. GLT .94 To make up for the times that I slacked off. GLT .91 To make up for me either taking long breaks or bein g absent too often. GLT .83 Initial Eigenvalue 8.193.821.86 1.67 1.41 Percent Variance Accounted for by Each Factor 35.60% 16.59% 8.08%7.25%6.12%

PAGE 53

38 Table 8. Inter-factor Correlations for the MOCBI Subscale Factor structure of the MOCBO. Similar to the above procedures for the MOCBI subscale, the 57 MOCBO items were factor analyzed u sing principal axis factoring with a Promax rotation. Eigenvalues for the first ten fact ors were 1 = 20.01, 2 = 7.93, 3 = 3.65, 4 = 2.86, 5 = 1.97, 6 = 1.88, 7 = 1.27, 8 = 1.07, 9 = 1.01, and 10 = .95, suggesting a nine-factor solution based on the EV>1 rule. The scree test and PA indicated a six-factor underlying structure. Similar to the M OCBI subscale, an EFA was repeated after elimination of bad items resulting in a fivefactor solution. Then, items were reduced to a maximum of five items per dimension ba sed on item analysis statistics and factor loadings, resulting in 23 final MOCBO items across the five dimensions. An EFA with principal axis factoring and a Promax r otation was repeated on the final 23 MOCBO items. Examination of the eigenvalues, factor loadings, and scree plot indicated a five-factor solution, explaining 76.15% of the va riance (see Table 9). Table 9. Total Variance Explained by the Five Extracted Fact ors of the MOCBO Subscale Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4Factor 5 Factor 1 .89 Factor 2 .57 .90 Factor 3 .45.62 .91 Factor 4 .17.39.43 .84 Factor 5-.20 .06.14.29 .92 Bolded numbers = Cronbach's Alpha for Each Factor Factor Total% Variance Cumulative % Total% Variance Cumulative % 17.9834.6934.697.6733.3633.3624.2418.4253.113.9717.2650.6232.5210.9664.072.259.7860.4041.747.5771.641.456.2966.6951.044.5176.150.743.2269.90 Initial Eigenvalues Extracted Sums of Squared Loadings

PAGE 54

39 The first MOCBO factor represented Prosocial Values motives (see Table 10). Guilt motives characterized the second MOCBO factor The third MOCBO factor consisted of Organizational Concern and Obligation motives. The fourth and fifth MOCBO factors corresponded to Achievement and Instrumental motives, respectively. Inter-factor correlations and dimension reliabiliti es are presented in Table 11.

PAGE 55

40 Table 10. Rotated Pattern Matrix of Loadings for the MOCBO It ems MOCBO Item Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3 Factor 4Factor 5 Because I care about other's feelings. PSV .95 Because I feel it is important to help others. PSV .90 Because I believe in being polite to others. PSV .89 To build trusting relationships. INT .74 To build positive relationships with my colleagues. INT .63 To make up for the times that I slacked off. GLT .95 To make up for not pulling my weight. GLT .89 To make up for me either taking long breaks or bein g absent too often. GLT .82 Because I feel guilty for not working as hard at ti mes. GLT .78 Because I feel guilty since my coworkers are workin g harder than me. GLT .72 So my organization will be successful. ORG .84 Because I feel a personal obligation to help my com pany achieve its goals. FOB .82 Because I have an obligation to my company to produ ce high quality work. FOB .78 Because I owe it to my organization. FOB .77 To give the organization a good reputation. ORG .72 Because it offers me an avenue to take charge of my career.AUT .93 Because it helps me achieve goals I set for myself. COM .81 Because it helps me advance in my career. ACH .69 Because it helps me feel accomplished. COM .64 Because I set high standards for myself. ACH .57 To increase my likelihood of getting a raise and/or promotion. INS .92 To make more money. INS .89 For a good recommendation. INS .64 Initial Eigenvalue 7.984.242.521.741.04 Percent Variance Accounted for by Each Factor 34.69% 18.42% 10.96%7.57%4.51% Apriori Motive

PAGE 56

41 Table 11. Inter-factor Correlations for the MOCBO Subscale Confirmatory factor analysis. To test whether the GSMS subscales had similar structures across different population subgroups, i tems completed by employees who worked more than 20 hours per week were submitted t o a CFA with ML estimation using Mplus 3.13 (Muthn & Muthn, 2006). The fit of the five-factor solutions that were identified during the EFAs for the MOCBI and MOCBO were tested separately. To determine the fit of the model, several goodness of fit indices were examined. The normed 2, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were examined. For acceptable model fit, the normed 2 should be between two and three with a desired cutoff of four (Carmines & McIver, 1981). Values above .90 indicate acceptable fit for the CFI and T LI (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Bollen, 1989). Values less than .10 indicate acceptable fit for the RMSEA and the SRMR (values less than .08 are indicative of very good fit, Brow ne and Cudeck, 1993; Kline, 2005). Fit statistics for the each subscale are presented in T able 12. Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4Factor 5 Factor 1 .92 Factor 2-.11 .90 Factor 3 .54.13 .92 Factor 4 .40.09.63 .88 Factor 5 .13.25.27.52 .86 Bolded numbers = Cronbach's Alpha for Each Factor

PAGE 57

42 Table 12. CFA Fit Statistics for MOCBI and MOCBO The fit statistics for the MOCBI and MOCBO subscal es signified acceptable model fit for a subset of the fit indices. For the MOCBI subscale, all fit indices indicated adequate model fit. Although the fit indices were n ot as positive for the MOCBO subscale, the normed 2, RMSEA, and SRMR suggested adequate model fit. Ove rall, the five-factor solutions for the two GSMS subscale dem onstrated acceptable model fit and, more importantly, demonstrated similar factor solut ions with two independent samples. As a further test of factor structure replication, I conducted a multi-group comparison CFA with ML estimation using Mplus 3.13 (Muthn & Muthn, 2006). Specifically, I constrained factor loadings across the two groups (i.e., individuals working 20 or less hours per week and individuals working m ore than 20 hours per week) to be equivalent. Results suggested adequate fit for the MOCBI subscale based on the normed 2 (2.03), RMSEA (.067), and SRMR (.070). Results als o suggested acceptable fit for the MOCBO subscale based on the normed 2 (2.87), RMSEA (.090), and SRMR (.081). These results provide encouraging support for the f actor structure and generalizability of the two subscales. Study 2 Discussion The factor structure for each subscale of the GSMS was examined. Motives to engage in OCB directed towards other individuals (M OCBI) resulted in five factors: (1) Model 2 df Normed 2 CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR 5-Factor CFA ( N = 281) MOCBI 531.621 2202.42 .926.915.071.064 5Factor CFA (N=281) MOCBO 794.392 2203.61 .881.863.096.079

PAGE 58

43 Prosocial Values, (2) Organizational Concern and Ob ligation, (3) Instrumental, (4) Guilt, and (5) Intimacy motives. Motives to participate in OCB directed towards the organization (MOCBO) also resulted in five factors: (1) Prosocial Values, (2) Organizational Concern and Obligation, (3) Instrume ntal, (4) Guilt, and (5) Achievement motives. CFA and multi-group comparison findings in dicated that the factor structures were similar across two samples. Interestingly, four motives were consistent across the two subscales, namely Prosocial Values, Organizational Concern and Obliga tion, Instrumental, and Guilt. The key differences between the two subscales were the Intimacy dimension for MOCBI and the Achievement dimension for MOCBO. Perhaps Intima cy motives did not emerge as a reason for performing OCBO because individuals moti vated by Intimacy value individual people and relationships, and perform OCB to help a nd serve others. Because OCBO are helping behaviors directed at the organizational as a whole Intimacy motives are less relevant. Alternatively, achievement-oriented indiv iduals focus on goal attainment and demonstrating success within the organization. OCBI behaviors focus on helping coworkers, making it less likely for achievement or iented individuals, who are focused on self-interests, to engage in these types of OCBs. O CBO, on the other hand, centers on demonstrating organizational citizenship through go od employee practices (e.g., lack of tardiness, following informal rules), behaviors nec essary for professional advancement within the organization. Now that the GSMS scale was finalized, the next st ep involved validating the GSMS, which was the purpose of Studies 3 and 4. Mor eover, Spector (1992) suggested that support for subscales in an instrument via CFA results is not enough evidence to

PAGE 59

44 conclude they represent their intended constructs. Such evidence is gleaned from validation studies.

PAGE 60

45 Chapter 3: Construct Validation of the GSMS As expected, not all higher-order motive dimension s survived the factor analysis in Study 2. In particular, motives grouped within S chwartz’s (1992) higher-order openness to change factor did not emerge (e.g., Autonomy and Competen ce). Perhaps respondents did not perceive OCB as a way to exerci se control or express their abilities. Instead, these types of motives may be more appropr iate for task performance, especially when examining managerial or technical expertise-ty pe roles. Motives sharing the selftranscendence characteristic of concern for social context outco mes (i.e., Intimacy, Organizational Concern and Obligation, Prosocial Va lues), those characterized by selfenhancement and the promotion of self-interests (i.e., Instrum ental and Achievement), and ones representing conservation and avoidance motivation (i.e., Guilt) arose as the primary motives for performing OCB. The purpose of Study 3 was to assess the construct validity of the GSMS. As recommended by Spector (19 92), the scale was validated by testing relationships between these sets of OCB mot ive dimensions and proposed correlates. What follows is a detailed description of each of the OCB motive correlates. Study 3 Background and Hypotheses Regulatory focus. Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) prop oses that there are two basic goal-striving strategies: promo tion focus and prevention focus. Promotion focus refers to the motivation to minimize discrepancies between current and ideal selves (i.e., what one desires to be), and vi ewing situations in terms of gains and

PAGE 61

46 non-gains. Conversely, prevention focus refers to motivations to minimize discrepancies between current and ought selves (i.e., what others think one should be), and viewing situations in terms of losses and non-losses. Consi dering promotion and prevention foci is important because each one has unique effects on at titudes and behaviors (i.e., work performance, OCB). Specifically, when promotion foc us is strong, people are fixated on advancement, where goals are comprised of hopes and aspirations. On the other hand, when prevention focus is strong, people strive for security and responsibility with goals focused on duties and obligations (Higgins, 1998). It was expected that promotion and prevention foci will be uniquely related to specifi c OCB motive dimensions. Promotion focus will be positively related to engaging in OCB as a means for self-growth and development, while prevention focus will be positiv ely related to performing OCB in order to avoid punishment and disappointing others. Therefore: Self-Enhancement Motives: Hypothesis 1: Promotion focus will be positively re lated to (MOCBI/MOCBO) Instrumental motives. Hypothesis 2: Promotion focus will be positively re lated to (MOCBI/MOCBO) Achievement motives. Conservation Motives: Hypothesis 3: Prevention focus will be positively r elated to (MOCBI/MOCBO) Guilt motives. Self-identity. Self-identity refers to the various self-definitio ns that people have of themselves (e.g., I am my child’s parent vs. a memb er of my work organization). There are at least three different self-identity levels: individual, relational, and collective

PAGE 62

47 (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Furthermore, people appea r to have chronic differences in the strength or importance of each of these three level s. Based on Lord and colleagues’ research (e.g., Lord & Brown, 2004; Lord et al., 20 01), it is expected that individual differences in the relative importance of OCB motiv e dimensions are systematically associated with individual differences in chronic i dentity level. People with strong individual identities define themselves by emphasizing ways i n which they are different—and better—than others, and are focused o n pursuing their own self-interests. Therefore, it is proposed that individual identity will be positively related to engaging in OCB for self-enhancement reasons (i.e., Achievement and Instrumental motives). Conversely, people with strong relational identities are motivated by the needs and expectations of partners in dyadic relationships, w ith the primary goal being to enhance the quality of interpersonal relationships. Because relational identity coincides with an emphasis on the quality of interpersonal relationsh ips, it is expected that this level will be positively related to performing OCB owing to selftranscendence motives (i.e., Intimacy, Organizational Concern and Obligation, and Prosocia l Values). People with strong collective identities define themselves via their g roup membership and are motivated to act in ways that benefit their groups and are consi stent with group norms. For this reason, it is expected that collective identity will be pos itively related to performing OCB due to Organizational Concern and Obligation motives. Last ly, guilt is a socially-oriented emotion, suggesting that individuals performing OCB for guilt reasons may do so to avoid disappointing coworkers or the organization. Thus, Guilt motives were expected to be positively related to both relational and collec tive identities. I proposed the following hypotheses:

PAGE 63

48 Self-Enhancement Motives: Hypothesis 4: Individual identity will be positivel y related to (MOCBI/MOCBO) Instrumental motives. Hypothesis 5: Individual identity will be positivel y related to (MOCBO) Achievement motives. Self-Transcendence Motives: Hypothesis 6: Relational identity will be positivel y related to (MOCBI/MOCBO) Prosocial Values motives. Hypothesis 7: Relational identity will be positivel y related to (MOCBI) Intimacy motives. Hypothesis 8: (a) Relational and (b) Collective ide ntity will be positively related to (MOCBI/MOCBO) Organizational Concern and Obligat ion motives. Conservation: Hypothesis 9: (a) Relational and (b) Collective ide ntity will be positively related to (MOCBI/MOCBO) Guilt motives. Self-serving traits. Machiavellianism and self-monitoring have been pre sented by researchers as untested dispositional antecedents o f OCB (Bolino, 1999; Bolino et al., 2004; Niehoff, 2000; Schnake, 1991). Machiavelliani sm and self-monitoring are typically associated with impression management behaviors (Bo lino & Turnley, 2003; Fandt & Ferris, 1990). However, researchers (e.g., Bolino, 1999) have suggested that many of the impression management behaviors are identical to th ose behaviors we would normally categorize as acts of organizational citizenship. J ones and Pittman (1982) conceptualized ingratiation, a form of impression management, as p erforming favors for others – a prime

PAGE 64

49 example of OCB. To that end, it is possible that OC Bs may be performed for self-serving reasons, suggesting relationships with self-serving traits like Machiavellianism and selfmonitoring. Machiavellianism describes people who hold cynical views about human nature and morality, and manipulate others to satisfy thei r self-interests (Christie & Geis, 1970). In an effort to assess Machiavellianism within the workplace context, Kessler and colleagues (2007) developed the Organizational Mach iavellianism Scale (OMS), consisting of three subscales – maintaining power ( i.e., beliefs focused on attaining and keeping power), sound management practices (i.e., b eliefs regarding effective management tactics), and manipulative behaviors (i. e., beliefs centering around using deceit as a means to an end). For this study, the m anipulative behaviors dimension was used to assess Machiavellianism because it resemble d established conceptualizations of the Machiavellianism construct and was relevant to both leadership and non-leadership positions. Thus, individuals holding manipulative b ehavior beliefs may leverage OCB as a method for attaining desired outcomes. Self-monitoring, the second self-serving trait pos ited to relate to OCB, is the ability to control one’s expressive behavior (Snyde r, 1974), such that high self-monitors are sensitive to their surroundings and tend to ada pt their behaviors to fit the situation. In contrast, low self-monitors are less concerned with how they are perceived by others and tend to behave more consistently across situations. Since participation in OCBs is conducive to organizational functioning as well as individual success, it is likely that high self-monitors engage in OCBs in an effort to adapt and succeed within an organization.

PAGE 65

50 Taken together, these self-serving personality trai ts were proposed to be associated with both self-enhancement and conservation OCB motives. Self-Enhancement Motives: Hypothesis 10: (a) Machiavellianism and (b) self-mo nitoring will be positively related to (MOCBI/MOCBO) Instrumental motives. Hypothesis 11: (a) Machiavellianism and (b) self-mo nitoring will be positively related to (MOCBO) Achievement motives. Conservation Motives: Hypothesis 12: (a) Machiavellianism and (b) self-mo nitoring will be positively related to (MOCBI/MOCBO) Guilt motives. Values. The GSMS motive dimensions were founded on Schwart z’s (1992) set of universal values. Therefore, relationships are expe cted between values and OCB motives. It is reasonable to expect strong relationships bet ween self-enhancement type OCB motives (i.e., Instrumental motives) and Schwartz’s self-enhancement values (i.e., achievement, power, and hedonism). Individuals who value achievement, power, and hedonism are driven by extrinsic rewards. Therefore it is more likely these individuals would utilize OCB for instrumental reasons, like pa y or promotions. Similarly, Schwartz’s self-transcendence values (i.e., univers alism and benevolence) center on what is best for the group. Individuals holding these va lues are expected to place greater importance on self-transcendence OCB motives (i.e., Intimacy, Organizational Concern and Obligation, and Prosocial Values motives). Indi viduals high in universalism values strive for the protection of the welfare of all peo ple, and therefore, would likely perform OCB based on the general concern for the group (i.e ., Organizational Concern and

PAGE 66

51 Obligation motive). Likewise, individuals high in b enevolence values aim for the preservation and enhancement of individuals which o ne holds personal relationships with, suggesting participating in OCB to build and maintain close relationships with others (i.e., Intimacy motive). Lastly, Schwartz’s conservation values (i.e., conformity, tradition, and security) where fear of failure is t he main driver are expected to influence individuals performing OCB for Guilt motives. Avoid ing reprimands by making up for past transgressions may stem from the need to perfo rm within social expectations (conformity value). Therefore, it is expected that motives and values which share the same higher-order dimensions will be positively cor related with each other. The following hypotheses were proposed: Self-Enhancement Motives: Hypothesis 13: Self-enhancement values of (a) hedon ism, (b) achievement, and (c) power will be positively related to (MOCBI/MOCBO) I nstrumental motives. Hypothesis 14: Self-enhancement values of (a) hedon ism, (b) achievement, and (c) power will be positively related to (MOCBO) Achieve ment motives. Self-Transcendence Motives: Hypothesis 15: Self-transcendence values of (a) uni versalism and (b) benevolence will be positively related to (MOCBI/MOCBO) Prosoci al Values motives. Hypothesis 16: Self-transcendence values of (a) uni versalism and (b) benevolence will be positively related to (MOCBI) Intimacy moti ves. Hypothesis 17: Self-transcendence values of (a) uni versalism and (b) benevolence (b) will be positively related to (MOCBI/MOCBO) Org anizational Concern and Obligation motives.

PAGE 67

52 Conservation Motives: Hypothesis 18: Conservation values of (a) conformit y, (b) tradition, and (c) security will be positively related to (MOCBI/MOCBO ) Guilt motives. Study 3 Method Participants and Procedure. Participants were recruited from the StudyReponse Project (2004a), an online paid participant pool wi th over 55,000 participants located mainly in the US. StudyResponse participants were e ntered into a random drawing for dollar-valued incentives (e.g., gift certificates) in exchange for their participation (StudyResponse Project, 2004b). An initial recruitm ent email with a SurveyMonkey website link to the 129-item survey was sent to 800 individuals with 128 individuals responding with completed surveys, for a response r ate of 16%. In addition to this paid participant pool, 191 participants were recruited t hrough the undergraduate Psychology participant pool at a large university in the south eastern US. However, 101 of the total 319 cases were dropped for the following reasons (1 ) non-conscientious responding detected by two items (e.g., This item is for keyin g purposes only. Please select “Strongly Agree”) and/or (2) working less than 30 hours per w eek. Thus, the final sample consisted of 218 full-time employed participants. Of the fina l sample, 147 (67.4%) were female, the average age was 34.3 years ( sd = 12.0), and the average job tenure was 5.0 years ( sd = 6.4). Participants were from a variety of racial/ ethnic backgrounds, including White non-Hispanic (79.8%), Black non-Hispanic (6.4%), Hi spanic (8.3%), and Asian (3.2%). Table 13 provides the breakdown of represented indu stries within the sample.

PAGE 68

53 Table 13. Frequency of Represented Industries Study 3 Measures Good Soldier Motives Scale (GSMS). Motives to participate in OCB were measured using the 46-item GSMS (23 items for MOCBI ; 23 items for MOCBO) developed in Studies 1 and 2 (see Appendix E). Part icipants rated the relative importance of each motive based on a 6-point Likert response s cale, ranging from 1 = not at all important to 6 = extremely important. Cronbach’s al pha ranged from .88 to .97 for the MOCBI and MOCBO subscales. Moreover, CFA results re vealed good fit with the original factor structure (see Table 14). Table 14. CFA Fit Statistics for the GSMS Model 2df Normed 2 CFITLIRMSEASRMR 5-factor CFA ( N = 218) MOCBI506.352202.30.93.92.08.06MOCBO749.072203.40.90.90.11.07 Regulatory focus. Promotion and prevention focus were assessed using Johnson and Chang’s (2008) 12-item work-based regulatory fo cus scale (see Appendix F). Johnson and Chang (2008) reported reliabilities of .85 (promotion focus) and .81 Industry Frequency Percent Other 58 26.6 Retail 28 12.8 Service 23 10.6 Medical/SocialService 21 9.6 Financial Services 19 8.7 Education 18 8.3 Government 12 5.5 Hospitality 10 4.6 Technology 10 4.6 Manufacturing 94.1 Communications 62.8 Entertainment 41.8 Total 218100

PAGE 69

54 (prevention focus). Sample items include: “My goal at work is to fulfill my potential to the fullest in my job” (promotion focus) and “I am focused on failure experiences that occur while working” (prevention focus). Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for the 6-item promotion subscale were .85 and .84 for the promoti on and prevention focus subscales, respectively. Self-identity. Self-identity was measured using subscales from Se lenta and Lord’s (2005) Levels of Self-Concept Scale (see Appendix G ). Participants responded to items using a 5-point Likert response scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Sample items include: “I have a strong need to know how I stand in comparison to coworkers” (individual identity), “I value friends who are caring, empathetic individuals” (relational identity), and “When I become involved in a group project, I do my best to ensure its success (collective identity).” Saboe an d Johnson (2008) reported reliabilities of .85 (individual identity), .86 (relational ident ity), and .76 (collective identity). In the present study, the internal consistencies for the i ndividual, relational, and collective subscales were .86, .81, .74, respectively. Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism was assessed via Kessler et al.’s (2007) 10item manipulative behaviors subscale ( a = .81) of the OMS (see Appendix H). Participants rated their extent of agreement on a 5 -point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Higher sco res indicate higher levels of Machiavellianism. Sample items include “It is wise to keep friends close but enemies closer” and “An effective individual should make hi m/herself feared but not hated.” The internal consistency was .87.

PAGE 70

55 Self-monitoring. Self-monitoring was measured using Snyder and Gang estad’s (1986) 18-item revised version of the Self-monitori ng Scale ( a = .70). As recommended by Briggs and Cheek (1986), participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree in lieu of the original True-False format (See Appendix I). Sample items include: “I f ind it hard to imitate the behavior of other people,” “I can only argue for ideas which I already believe,” and “I would probably make a good actor.” Cronbach’s alpha for t he scale was .75. Values. Lindeman and Verkasalo (2005) 10-item scale, Shor t Schwartz’s Value Survey (SSVS), was used to assess Schwartz’s 10 uni versal values (See Appendix J). The SSVS provides a practical alternative to the longer 57-item SVS. There is supportive evidence for the reliability and validity of this s horter scale (Lindeman & Verkasalo, 2005). Respondents rated their level of importance for each value as a life-guiding principle on a 9-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 = opposed to my principles to 8 = of supreme importance. Covariates. Information pertaining to participant gender and t enure were also collected (see Appendix C). Because research (e.g., Allen & Rush, 2001; Kidder, 2002) suggests differences in types of OCB engaged in as well as expectations of OCB across men and women, gender was included as a control var iable. Likewise, as suggested by research on older and younger workers and OCB (e.g. Wagner & Rush, 2000), tenure may play a potential moderating role on OCB and thu s was included as another control variable.

PAGE 71

56 Study 3 Results Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations amon g study 3 variables are presented in Table 15. Data were inspected to ensure no viola tion of regression assumptions of independence, normality, linearity, and homoscedast icity. In addition, using recommended procedures (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001), data were screened for outliers, which were defined as data points falling greater t han three standard deviations from the mean. All data were retained.

PAGE 72

57 Table 15. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study 3 Variables Variable123456789101112OCB Motives 1.MOCBI Prosocial Values(.88)2.MOCBI Intimacy.59**(.90)3.MOCBI Org Concern and Obligation.33**.40**(.93)4.MOCBI Instrumental.11.26**.34**(.92)5.MOCBI Guilt.08.21**.21**.41**(.95)6.MOCBO Prosocial Values.57**.47**.56**.27**.21**(. 93) 7.MOCBO Guilt.15*.21**.22**.32**.75**.20**(.97)8.MOCBO Org Concern and Obligation.35**.32**.82**.1 6*.18**.53**.23**(.95) 9.MOCBO Achievement.29**.34**.53**.32**.16*.42**.15 *.63**(.91) 10.MOCBO Instrumental.15*.26**.30**.77**.33**.23**. 30**.24**.52**(.90) Regulatory Focus 11.Promotion Focused.42**.40**.57**.12.17*.48**.18* *.63**.59**.17**(.85) 12.Prevention Focused-.02.02-.02.15*.25**-.08.30**.01.04.20**-.13(.84) Self-identity 13.Individual identity-.02.06.04.48**.31**.04.31**.07.13.47**-.09.42** 14.Relational identity.43**.29**.11.05-.03.26**.04. 15*.21**.10.34**-.02 15.Collective identity.33**.21**.41**.06.00.35**.04 .46**.45**.16*.51**-.17** Machiavellianism & Self-monitoring 16.Manipulative Behaviors-.15*-.06.03.35**.31**-.01 .26**-.04-.01.30**-.13*.25** 17.Self-monitoring-.09.06-.01.30**.23**-.07.23**-.0 6.09.24**.04.17* Covariates 18.Gender.14*.04-.04.13.10.08.13*-.06.01.13.01.0919.Tenure-.05-.09-.08-.28**-.15*-.07-.03-.05-.17*-. 47**-.14-.10 Mean4.744.514.033.922.234.452.344.234.444.224.092.5 4 SD.83.951.271.391.471.171.511.361.171.39.69.91 Note: Reliability estimates appear on the diagonal; N = 218; ** p<.01; *p<.05 (two-tailed)

PAGE 73

58 (Table 15 continued) Variable13141516171819OCB Motives 1.MOCBI Prosocial Values2.MOCBI Intimacy3.MOCBI Org Concern and Obligation4.MOCBI Instrumental5.MOCBI Guilt6.MOCBO Prosocial Values7.MOCBO Guilt8.MOCBO Org Concern and Obligation9.MOCBO Achievement 10.MOCBO Instrumental Regulatory Focus 11.Promotion Focused12.Prevention Focused Self-identity 13.Individual identity(.86)14.Relational identity-.01(.81)15.Collective identity-.07.51**(.74) Machiavellianism & Self-monitoring 16.Manipulative Behaviors.48**.15*-.02(.87)17.Self-monitoring.42**.03-.05.19**(.75) Covariates 18.Gender-.02.17*.04-.11.04NA19.Tenure-.20**-.19**-.18*-.01-.08-.19*NA Mean3.144.454.252.462.87NA4.97 SD .93.52.56.76.52NA6.44 Note: Reliability estimates appear on the diagonal; N = 218; ** p<.01; *p<.05 (two-tailed)

PAGE 74

59 Regression Analyses. Hypotheses 1-18 were tested by performing a series of hierarchical regression analyses to identify the re lationships between OCB motives and their proposed correlates. To do this, each of the OCB motives were regressed separately onto each set of OCB motive correlates (i.e., regul atory foci, self-identity, self-serving traits, and values). For each regression equation, covariates were entered in step 1, followed by the OCB motive correlates in step 2. Be ta weights for each OCB motive correlate were examined to identify the direction o f the relationship with the OCB motive dimension. Regulatory Focus and OCB Motives. To test Hypotheses 1-3, Self-enhancement motives (i.e., Instrumental and Achievement) and Co nservation motives (i.e., Guilt) were independently regressed onto the Regulatory focus s ubscales. Table 16 presents the Beta weights for promotion and prevention focus subscale s. All three hypotheses were supported. Specifically, promotion focus displayed a positive relationship with MOCBI/MOCBO Instrumental motives (Hypothesis 1) and MOCBO Achievement motives (Hypotheses 2), while prevention focus demo nstrated a positive relationship with MOCBI/MOCBO Guilt motives (Hypothesis 3).

PAGE 75

60 Table 16. Hierarchical Regression for Regulatory Focus Correl ates and OCB Motives Achievement MOCBIMOCBOMOCBOMOCBIMOCBO Step 1 Demographic Gender.08.04-.03.10.17*Tenure-.27**-.46**-.18*-.13.00F8.45**25.82**2.893.07*2.78R-Square.09.22.03.03.03 Step 2 DemographicGender.07.02-.04.08.15*Tenure-.24**-.42**-.09-.08.06Regulatory FocusPromotion.15*.19**.55**.19**.23**Prevention.11.16*.12.26**.28** F2.916.49**40.48**9.36**12.16** R-Square.03.05.30.09.12 Full Model F5.77**16.93**22.316.35**7.64**Full Model R-Square.11.27.33.12.14 Predictors Instrumental Guilt Note : N = 186. Values reported in the table are standardiz ed regression coefficients, which correspond to the step in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed). Self-identity and OCB Motives. Hypotheses 4-9 were tested by independently regressing the six OCB motives onto the self-identi ty subscales (see Table 17). In line with expectations, individual identity was positive ly related to MOCBI/MOCBO Instrumental motives (Hypothesis 4) and MOCBO Achie vement motives (Hypothesis 5). Relational identity was positively related to MOCBI Prosocial Values motives (partially supporting Hypothesis 6) and MOCBI Intimacy motives (Hypothesis 7). However, relational identity failed to demonstrate positive relationships with MOCBI/MOCBO Organizational Concern and Obligation motives and M OCBI/MOCBO Guilt motives (failing to support Hypothesis 8a and 9a). Collecti ve identity was positively related to MOCBI/MOCBO Organizational Concern and Obligation m otives (Hypothesis 8b), but demonstrated no relationship with Guilt motives (fa iling to support Hypothesis 9b).

PAGE 76

61 Table 17. Hierarchical Regression for Self-identity Correlate s and OCB Motives AchievementIntimacy MOCBIMOCBOMOCBOMOCBIMOCBOMOCBIMOCBIMOCBOMOCBIMOCBO Step 1 Demographic Gender.08.04-.03.19*.09.06-.04-.05.10.17*Tenure-.27**-.46**-.18*-.02-.05-.08-.09-.06-.13.00F8.45**25.82**2.893.48*1.22.98.74.443.07*2.78R-Square.09.22.03.04.01.01.01.01.03.03 Step 2 DemographicGender.10.05-.03.10.07.00-.02-.04.13.19*Tenure-.18*-.37**-.08.06.02-.01-.02.00-.08.08Self-IdentityIndividual.41**.34**.16*-.07.04.06.07-.01.29**.31**Relational-.05-.03-.05.35**.05.24**-.16*-.12-.08-.0 2 Collective-.08.18**.45**.21**.31**.08.47**.51**.01. 07 F13.00**12.46**15.29**18.91**7.71**5.20**12.90**15 .78**5.95**6.27** R-Square.16.13.20.23.11.08.18.21.09.09 Full Model F11.85**19.74**10.60**13.15**5.17**3.54* *8.09**9.69**4.90**4.97** Full Model R-Square.25.35.23.27.13.09.18.21.12.12 Guilt Instrumental Organizational Concern and Obligation Predictors Prosocial Values Note : N = 186. Values reported in the table are standardiz ed regression coefficients, which correspond to the step in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 77

62 Self-serving Traits and OCB Motives. To test Hypotheses 10-12, Selfenhancement motives (i.e., Instrumental and Achieve ment) and Conservation motives (i.e., Guilt) were independently regressed onto the self-serving traits of Machiavellianism (manipulative behaviors) and self-monitoring (see T able 18). Findings demonstrated support for Hypothesis 10 and 12. Specifically, Mac hiavellianism (Hypothesis 10a) and self-monitoring (Hypothesis 10b) were positively re lated to MOCBI/MOCBO Instrumental motives. Similarly, Machiavellianism ( Hypothesis 12a) and self-monitoring (Hypothesis 12b) were positively related to MOCBI/M OCBO Guilt motives. There were no significant relationships of Machiavellinism or self-monitoring with MOCBO Achievement motives, failing to support Hypothesis 11. Table 18. Hierarchical Regression for Self-serving Traits and OCB Motives Achievement MOCBIMOCBOMOCBOMOCBIMOCBO Step 1 Demographic Gender .08 .04 -.03 .10 .17* Tenure-.27**-.46**-.18*-.13.00 F 8.45** 25.82** 2.89 3.07* 2.78 R-Square.09.22.03.03.03 Step 2 Demographic Gender.12.07-.03.15*.21**Tenure-.24**-.44**-.17*-.10.03 Self-Serving Machiavellinism (Manipulative Behaviors) .31**.26**.01.31**.25** Self-monitoring.21**.15*.12.17*.18* F 18.69** 13.40** 1.47 15.38** 11.30** R-Square.16.10.02.14.11 Full Model F 14.39** 21.36** 2.19 9.46** 7.20** Full Model R-Square.24.32.05.17.14 Predictors Instrumental Guilt Note : N = 186. Values reported in the table are standardiz ed regression coefficients, which correspond to the step in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 78

63 Values and OCB Motives. OCB motives were independently regressed onto the four sets of higher-order dimensions of Schwartz’s universal values to test Hypothesis 13-18 (see Tables 19-21). Hypotheses 13 and 14 pre dicted positive relationships between self-enhancement values and self-enhancement motive s (i.e., Instrumental and Achievement). Findings demonstrated partial support for both hypotheses. In particular, hedonism was positively related to MOCBI Instrument al motives (Hypothesis 13a) and power was positively related to MOCBI and MOCBO Ins trumental motives (Hypothesis 13c). Achievement was positively related to MOCBO A chievement motives (Hypothesis 14b). Hypotheses 15-17 tested the relationship betw een self-transcendence values and self-transcendence motives of Prosocial Values, Int imacy, and Organizational Concern and Obligation. Results indicated positive relation ships between the self-transcendence value of benevolence with all self-transcendence mo tives, supporting Hypotheses 15b, 16b, and 17b. Lastly, Hypothesis 18 examined the re lationship between conservation values and conservation motives. Analyses revealed weak support such that the only significant positive relationship existed between s ecurity and MOCBI Guilt motives.

PAGE 79

64 Table 19. Hierarchical Regression for Self-enhancement Values and OCB Motives Achievement MOCBIMOCBOMOCBO Step 1 Demographic Gender.08.04-.02Tenure-.27**-.46**-.18*F 8.57**25.72**2.90 R-Square .09 .22 .03 Step 2 DemographicGender.06.02-.04 Tenure -.14 -.35** -.08 Self-enhancement ValuesHedonism.18*.13-.09 Achievement .14 .12 .29** Power .21* .22** .11 F 12.94**12.06**6.70** R-Square.16.13.10 Full Model F11.87**19.40**5.29**Full Model R-Square.25.35.13 Predictors Instrumental Note : N = 185. Values reported in the table are standardiz ed regression coefficients, which correspond to the step in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed). Table 20. Hierarchical Regression for Self-transcendence Valu es and OCB Motives Intimacy MOCBIMOCBOMOCBIMOCBIMOCBO Step 1 Demographic Gender.19*.09.06-.04-.05Tenure-.02-.05-.08-.09-.06 F 3.48* 1.22 .98 .74 .44 R-Square.04.01.01.01.01 Step 2 Demographic Gender .11 .02 .00 -.08 -.10 Tenure .03 -.02 -.04 -.07 -.03 Self-transcendence ValuesUniversalism.06-.03.08.02.04 Benevolence .37** .39** .22** .20* .23** F 16.74**14.54**6.90**3.79*5.79** R-Square.15.14.07.04.06 Full Model F10.41**7.97**3.97**2.273.13*Full Model R-Square.19.15.08.05.07 Organizational Concern and Obligation Predictors Prosocial Values Note : N = 186. Values reported in the table are standardiz ed regression coefficients, which correspond to the step in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 80

65 Table 21. Hierarchical Regression for Schwartz’s Conservation Values and OCB Motives MOCBIMOCBO Step 1 Demographic Gender.11.17* Tenure -.13 .01 F 3.22*2.65 R-Square.03.03 Step 2 DemographicGender.12.18*Tenure-.10.02Conservation Values Conformity -.05 .05 Tradition-.01-.05Security.20*.08 F 1.82 .55 R-Square.03.01 Full Model F 2.40* 1.39 Full Model R-Square.06.04 Guilt Predictors Note : N = 185. Values reported in the table are standardiz ed regression coefficients, which correspond to the step in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed). Study 3 Discussion The goal of Study 3 was to establish the construct validity of the GSMS through the examination of relationships with OCB correlate s of regulatory focus, self-identity, Machiavellianism, self-monitoring, and values. More over, to address the sample limitation of Study 1 and Study 2, participants in this study included full-time employees, enhancing the generalizability of results of the GS MS construct validation study. Regulatory Focus and OCB Motives. Hypotheses relevant to regulatory focus and OCB motives (i.e., H1-H3) were supported. As expect ed, individuals with a strong promotion focus were more likely to engage in OCB f or self-enhancement reasons (i.e.,

PAGE 81

66 Instrumental and Achievement motives) due to their focus on advancement and goal attainment. Conversely, individuals with a strong p revention focus endorsed engaging in OCB for conservation reasons (i.e., Guilt motives) due to their need to avoid punishment or disappointing others. Self-identity and OCB Motives. Hypotheses relevant to self-identity and OCB motives (i.e., H4-H9) demonstrated mixed support. A s expected, individual identity was positively related to self-enhancement motives (i.e ., Instrumental and Achievement). Participants possessing strong individual identitie s define themselves in comparison to others and focus on attainment of self-interests. T hus, these individuals are more likely to perform OCB for a positive recommendation or for ca reer advancement. Individuals with strong relational identities are driven by the need to enhance the quality of their interpersonal relationships. In partial support of this, relational identity was positively related to two out of the three self-transcendence motives (i.e., Intimacy and Prosocial Values). Individuals with strong relational identit ies perform OCBs to build relationships and assist others. However, results failed to demon strate a relationship between relational identity and Organizational Concern and Obligation motives. One explanation is that these motives focus on the success of the organizat ion as a whole rather than the individual relationships within the organization, m aking it less likely for individuals with a strong relational identity to endorse. People wit h strong collective identities are concerned with the welfare of the group and define themselves based on their group membership. In accordance with this perspective, re sults demonstrated positive relationships between collective identity and MOCBI /MOCBO Organizational Concern and Obligation motives. Findings failed to support a relationship between both relational

PAGE 82

67 and collective identities and the conservation moti ve of Guilt, posited as a sociallyoriented emotion. Interestingly, individual identit y demonstrated strong positive correlations with MOCBI/MOCBO Guilt motives. Perhap s, individuals performing OCB for guilt reasons are more self-focused and are dri ven by impression management reasons rather than a genuine concern for others. Self-serving Traits and OCB Motives. Results displayed partial support for hypotheses testing relationships between self-servi ng traits and OCB motives (i.e., H10H12). Positive relationships existed between self-s erving traits (i.e., Machiavellianism and self-monitoring) and Instrumental and Guilt mot ives, respectively. However, findings failed to support relationships between self-servin g traits and Achievement motives. In support of the view that behaviors representing OCB may be identical to those of impression management, it is expected that these se lf-serving traits will be associated with motives linked to presenting a favorable image to others. Individuals high in Machiavellianism and self-monitoring may use OCB as a means to guarantee a promotion or as a method of making up for past tran sgressions to sustain a positive perception. These individuals are also less likely to perform OCB for feelings of accomplishment (i.e., Achievement), an intrinsicall y oriented motivation. Values and OCB Motives. Hypotheses 13-18 were partially supported. First, selfenhancement values (i.e., hedonism, achievement, an d power) were expected to relate positively to self-enhancement motives (i.e., Instr umental and Achievement). Significant positive relationships existed between hedonism and MOCBI Instrumental motives, achievement and MOCBO Achievement motives, and powe r and MOCBI/MOCBO Instrumental motives. Individuals valuing hedonism or the pursuit of gratification for

PAGE 83

68 oneself perform OCB for extrinsic rewards like prom otions or recommendations. Likewise, individuals valuing power and control ove r others and resources are also motivated extrinsically and would exhibit OCB for s imilar reasons. Alternatively, those who value achievement seek personal success and wou ld most likely perform OCB for personal accomplishments or career-related reasons. Second, self-transcendence values (i.e., universalism and benevolence) were expected to relate positively to selftranscendence motives (i.e., Prosocial Values, Inti macy, and Organizational Concern and Obligation). Positive relationships existed only be tween benevolence and all selftranscendence motives. One explanation is that bene volence is concerned with improving the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent contact with, such as an individual’s coworkers, while universalism refers to understandi ng, appreciating, and protecting people and nature. The universalism value is perhap s too far removed from the workplace context and would likely not correlate with any wor k-related construct. Finally, conservation values (i.e., conformity, tradition, a nd security) were expected to relate positively to conservation motives (i.e., Guilt). F indings revealed no significant relationships between conservation values and Guilt motives. Conservation values are centered around avoidance of harm to others and mai ntenance of safety and harmony within relationships, values that tend to be otherfocused. As mentioned above, Guilt motives may be closely tied with impression managem ent, a more self-focused oriented motive, explaining the lack of relationship with co nservation values. The aim of Study 3 was to establish construct vali dity through the examination of relationships between OCB motive dimensions and pro posed correlates. All in all, findings demonstrated relationships in the expected directions with minor exceptions. To

PAGE 84

69 compliment the construct validation study, I tested the criterion validity of the GSMS in Study 4.

PAGE 85

70 Chapter 4: Criterion Validation of the GSMS Study 4 Background and Hypotheses The purpose of Study 4 was to assess the criterion -related validity of the GSMS by looking at the relationships between OCB motives and OCB behaviors. Aside from establishing criterion-related validity, Study 4 id entified the predictive ability of the GSMS incremental to previously established OCB pers onality and attitudinal antecedents as well as the predictive validity beyond that of R ioux and Penner’s (2001) CMS. Researchers (e.g., Bolino, 1999; Bolino et al., 20 04) have suggested that individuals using OCB for self-enhancement reasons (e.g., Instrumental and Guilt) may knowingly engage in OCBs that are highly visible to others, especially to those who control rewards. Thus, Instrumental motives are lik ely related to OCBI (e.g., helping others who have heavy workloads). Additionally, bas ed on findings from the construct validation, Guilt motives, found to be highly corre lated to self-serving traits, may also be plausible reasons for engaging in OCBI. Indeed, res earch has found that individuals high in Machiavellianism, a self-serving personality tra it, were more likely to engage in OCBI than OCBO due to the greater likelihood of reciproc ity and immediate gains from a specific target (Becker & O’Hair, 2007). Conversely self-transcendence motives (e.g., Organizational Concern and Obligation), which are c oncerned with group welfare, are likely related to OCBO (e.g., defending the organiz ation if others criticize it). Individuals participating in OCB for self-transcendence reasons perceive OCBs in the traditional

PAGE 86

71 sense, as an altruistic act aimed at helping the or ganization as a whole. In line with this reasoning, research has found that individuals with Organizational Concern motives participate in greater OCBOs (Finkelstein, 2006; Fi nkelstein & Penner, 2004; Rioux, 1998; Rioux & Penner, 2001). Because the GSMS diffe rentiates between motives for OCBI and motives for OCBO, these unique subscales a re expected to relate to their respective OCBs. Specific dimensional subscale pred ictions for the GSMS with OCBI and OCBO were exploratory. The following hypotheses were posited: Hypothesis 19: MOCBI will be positively related to OCBI. Hypothesis 20: MOCBO will be positively related to OCBO. Meta-analytic findings suggest that individuals hi gh in conscientiousness and agreeableness are more likely to engage in OCB (e.g ., Borman et al., 2001; Dalal, 2005; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Consci entious individuals are hard working, reliable, and driven by success. Given tha t conscientious individuals perform above and beyond at their jobs, they are expected t o engage in greater amounts of OCBs. Similarly, agreeable individuals are motivated to m aintain positive relationships with others, and, as a result, would more likely partici pate in helping behaviors that cultivate relationships with their colleagues. Aside from per sonality, organizational attitudes have been found to predict OCB performance. More specifi cally, job satisfaction, affective commitment, justice, and organizational support are important antecedents (e.g., CohenCharash & Spector, 2001; Dalal, 2005; O’Brien & All en, in press; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Individuals with positive attitudes and feel ings towards their jobs and their organizations are more likely to reciprocate and gi ve back to their organizations through OCB. Recent research has started examining motives to perform OCBs as an additional

PAGE 87

72 antecedent of OCB. For example, Rioux and Penner (2 001) found that two of the three CMS motives (i.e., Organizational Concern and Proso cial Values) predicted OCB beyond attitudinal (i.e., distributive and procedural just ice) and personality variables (i.e., positive mood, other-oriented empathy, and helpfuln ess). I therefore tested whether the GSMS motive dimensions predicted OCB above and beyo nd personality and attitudinal antecedents. Hypothesis 21: MOCBI motives will account for uniqu e variance in OCBI incremental to the personality traits of conscienti ousness and agreeableness. Hypothesis 22: MOCBO motives will account for uniqu e variance in OCBO incremental to the personality traits of conscienti ousness and agreeableness. Hypothesis 23: MOCBI motives will account for uniqu e variance in OCBI incremental to the work-related attitudes of job sa tisfaction, organizational commitment, perceived organizational justice, and p erceived organizational support. Hypothesis 24: MOCBO motives will account for uniqu e variance in OCBO incremental to the work-related attitudes of job sa tisfaction, organizational commitment, perceived organizational justice, and p erceived organizational support. The realization that OCB may be performed for self -serving, non-altruistic reasons has implications for the impact of these mo tives on OCB, in particular, the quality of OCB. Although not empirically tested, Bo lino and his colleagues have suggested that OCB performed for self-serving reaso ns may be performed less consistently and with less effort (Bolino, 1999; Bo lino, Turnley, & Niehoff, 2004).

PAGE 88

73 Individuals with self-serving intentions place them selves as a priority over others and the organization, which may lessen the effectiveness of OCB. For example, an individual performing OCB for impression management reasons ma y only participate in behaviors guaranteed to be noticed and receive credit. Thus, the present study assessed not only frequency but also effectiveness of OCB in order to test this assumption. It was expected that self-enhancement motives will produce less eff ective OCBs than self-transcendence motives. Therefore: Hypothesis 25: MOCBI motives will account for signi ficant variance in OCBI effectiveness ratings. Hypothesis 26: Compared to MOCBI self-enhancement m otives (i.e., Instrumental) and conservation motives (i.e., Guilt ), MOCBI self-transcendence motives (i.e., Prosocial Values, Organizational Con cern and Obligation, and Intimacy) will contribute more to the prediction of OCBI effectiveness ratings. Hypothesis 27: MOCBO motives will account for signi ficant variance in OCBO effectiveness ratings. Hypothesis 28: Compared to MOCBO self-enhancement m otives (i.e., Instrumental and Achievement) and conservation moti ves (i.e., Guilt), MOCBO self-transcendence motives (i.e., Prosocial Values and Organizational Concern and Obligation) will contribute more to the predict ion of OCBO effectiveness ratings. Rioux and Penner’s CMS captures three motives to p erform OCB (i.e., Organizational Concern, Prosocial Values, and Impre ssion Management). The GSMS in the present study separated motives for OCBI and OC BO in addition to identifying

PAGE 89

74 additional motive dimensions. (e.g., Intimacy, Guil t, Achievement). Therefore, it was expected that the GSMS will account for unique vari ance above that of the CMS. Hypothesis 29: (a) The MOCBI subscale will account for unique variance in OCBI incremental to the CMS. (b) The MOCBO subscale will account for unique variance in OCBO incremental to the CMS. Study 4 Method Participants and Procedure. Similar to Study 3, participants for the criterionrelated validation study were recruited from the St udyReponse Project (2004a). Data were collected via two surveys. The first survey co nsisted of 152 items assessing OCB antecedents (i.e., OCB motives, personality, and at titudes) as well as demographic variables. The second survey measured the criterion of interest – OCBI and OCBO using 14 items from existing OCB measures. In addition to completing both surveys, participants were asked to forward the second surve y to their supervisor. Research suggests differences in OCB ratings when comparing self versus others ratings of OCB (Allen, Barnard, Rush, & Russell, 2000). Thus, obta ining multi-source OCB data was critical. StudyResponse participants with complete data (i.e., self-report of both surveys and manager OCB data) were paid for their participa tion. After pre-screening 17,159 people in the StudyResponse database, a recruitment email with a SurveyMonkey website link to the 152-item survey was sent to 846 partici pants who met the study’s criteria. Those StudyResponse participants who completed the first survey were then instructed to complete the second survey and were also asked to f orward the link on to their supervisor. Of the 846 individuals, 485 completed b oth surveys for a 57.3% response rate. However, 308 participants were deleted due to blank data and haphazard responding

PAGE 90

75 as indicated by two items (e.g., This item is for k eying purposes only. Please select “Not at all important”). From the StudyResponse particip ant pool, 177 had complete self-data, while only 60 of the 177 had both complete self-dat a as well as manager OCB data. In addition to this paid participant pool, 108 additio nal participants were recruited through two large southeastern universities. Students were offered extra credit for their participation. I received complete data (i.e., self and supervisor OCB ratings) from 47 participants, for a response rate of 43.5% for this pool. In sum, the final sample consisted of 224 participants with 107 individuals containing self and supervisor data. Of the final 224 participants, 167 (74.6%) were female, 189 (84. 4%) worked full time, and 173 (77.2%) were in non-managerial positions. Participa nts were from a variety of racial/ethnic backgrounds, including White non-Hisp anic (78.6%), Black non-Hispanic (8%), Hispanic (8.9%), Asian (3.6%), and other (.9% ). Table 22 provides the breakdown for the age, industry, and tenure for the participa nt sample. Of the final supervisor sample, 62 (57.9%) were male and have known the par ticipant for an average of 3.5 years ( sd = 2.9). Racial/ethnic backgrounds for supervisors included White non-Hispanic (83.2%), Black non-Hispanic (5.6%), Hispanic (4.7%) Asian (5.6%), and other (.9%).

PAGE 91

76 Table 22. Frequency of Participant Demographic Variables Demographic Variable FrequencyPercent Age (in years) 18 to 21 156.7 22 to 25 3214.3 26 to 29 3214.3 30 to 39 6227.7 40 to 49 4821.4 50 to 59 3113.8 60 or older 41.8 Industry Other 5725.45 Service 2712.05 Government 208.93 Retail 208.93 Education 198.48 Hospitality 188.04 Medical/Social Services 188.04 Manufacturing 167.14 Financial Services 135.80 Technology 83.57 Entertainment 41.79 Communications 31.34 Military 10.45 Tenure (in years) less than 1 3616.1 1 to 2 6026.8 3 to 5 5625.0 6 to 10 3716.5 11 or more 3515.6 Total 224100 Study 4 Measures Good Soldier Motives Scale (GSMS). OCB motives were assessed using the 46item GSMS developed in Phase I and Rioux and Penner ’s (2001) 30-item Citizenship Motives Scale (CMS; see Appendix K). Participants r ated their level of importance on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = not at all important to 6 = extremely important). For the GSMS MOCBI subscale, Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .90 to .96 over the five dimensions. For

PAGE 92

77 the GSMS MOCBO subscale, Cronbach’s alpha ranged fr om .91 to .97 over the five dimensions. See Table 24 for specific reliabilities for the GSMS subscales. Rioux and Penner (2001) reported reliabilities of .93 (Organi zational Concern), .88 (Prosocial Values), and .98 (impression management) for their CMS. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the CMS subscales were .94 for Prosocial Values, .95 for Organizational Concern, and .92 for impression mana gement. Additionally, CFA analyses revealed good fit for the MOCBI subscale a nd acceptable fit for the MOCBO subscale (see Table 23). Table 23. CFA Fit Statistics for the GSMS Model 2df Normed 2 CFITLIRMSEASRMR 5-factor CFA ( N = 224) MOCBI507.072202.30.93.93.08.06MOCBO701.682203.19.92.90.10.06 Agreeableness. Agreeableness was measured using 10 items pulled f rom the Big Five Inventory of Goldberg’s (1999) International P ersonality Item Pool (IPIP) (see Appendix L). Participants rated how often each it em, such as “I have a good word for everyone,” describes them on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = never to 6 = always). Cronbach’s alpha was .81 in the present study. Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness was measured using 10 items also pulled from Goldberg’s (1999) IPIP (see Appendix M). Sampl e items include “I am always prepared” and “I pay attention to details.” Partici pants rated how often each item describes them on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = never to 6 = always). Cronbach’s alpha was .80 in the present study.

PAGE 93

78 Organizational commitment. Affective (6 items) and continuance (6 items) commitment was measured using Meyer and Allen’s (19 97) revised measure (see Appendix N). Sample items include “I really feel as if my organization’s problems are my own” (affective commitment) and “It would be har d for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to” (continuance commit ment). Participants rated their extent of agreement for each statement on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Meyer and Allen (1997) reported re liabilities of .85 (affective commitment) and .79 (continuance commitment). Cronb ach’s alpha was .86 (affective commitment) and .81 (continuance commitment) for th is study. Perceived organizational justice. Distributive (4 items), procedural (7 items) and interpersonal (4 items) justice were assessed using Colquitt’s (2001) organizational justice scale with reported reliabilities of .92 (d istributive), .78 (procedural), and .79 (interpersonal) (see Appendix O). Participants rate d their extent of agreement for each statement on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly d isagree to 6 = strongly agree) on items such as, “My pay reflects the effort I put into my work” (distributive), “Decisions at my organization have been consistent” (procedural), an d “My supervisor treats me in a polite manner” (interpersonal). In the present study, Cron bach’s alpha was .94 (distributive), .90 (procedural), and .93 (interpersonal) in the presen t study. Perceived organizational support. POS was measured using Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa’s (1986) 8-item measu re, the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support, with a reported reliability of .97 (SPOS; see Appendix P). Using a 6-point Likert scale, participants rated their ex tent of agreement for items, such as “My organization shows concern for me.” Cronbach’s alph a in the present study was .95.

PAGE 94

79 Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using Cammann, Fichm an, Jenkins, & Klesh’s (1979) 3-item job satisfaction s ubscale from their Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (see Append ix Q). In a meta-analytic investigation, Bowling and Hammond (2008) reported a weighted reliability of .84. Participants rated items, such as “In general, I li ke working here” on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree) Cronbach’s alpha was .85 in the present study. OCB. OCB frequency and effectiveness measures (see Appe ndix R) were developed for the study by pulling from existing OC B measures (i.e., Podsakoff et al., 1990; Van Dyne et al., 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidl o, 1996; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Participants and supervisors reported OCB on two response scales, frequency (1 = never or almost never to 5 = always or almost alway s) and effectiveness (1 = not at all effective to 5 = extremely effective). For particip ants, Cronbach’s alpha was .80 (OCBI frequency), .85 (OCBI effectiveness), .80 (OCBO fre quency), and .81 (OCBO effectiveness). For supervisors, Cronbach’s alpha w as .83 (OCBI frequency), .89 (OCBI effectiveness), .85 (OCBO frequency), and .88 (OCBO effectiveness). Covariates. Gender and tenure were collected (see Appendix C) and were included as control variables in the analyses. Kidd er and Parks (2001) hypothesized the existence of gender-role stereotypes influencing th e expectations of OCB. When females perform OCB, it may go unnoticed due to the preconc eived notion that OCBs are expected from women, who are stereotyped to possess a concern for others and an interpersonal orientation (Kidder & Parks, 2001). T herefore, gender was included as a control variable. Similarly, Wagner and Rush (2000) posited that early career employees

PAGE 95

80 may be driven by higher needs for achievement, whil e more seasoned employees are driven by greater needs for affiliation, suggesting various motivations for performing OCB as well as potential differences in the types o f OCBs performed. Because tenure may play a potential moderating role on OCB, it was included as another control variable. Study 4 Results Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations amon g Study 4 variables are presented in Table 24. Similar to study 3, regression assumpt ions of independence, normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity were evaluated. Dat a were also screened for outliers, which were defined as data points falling greater t han three standard deviations from the mean. All data were retained.

PAGE 96

81 Table 24. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study 4 Variables Variable 12 34567 8910 11 12 OCB Motives 1. MOCBI (.92) 2. MOCBI Prosocial Values .64** (.91) 3. MOCBI Intimacy .67** .64** (.90) 4. MOCBI Org Concern and Obligation .74** .46** .48** (.94) 5. MOCBI Instrumental .70** .15* .24** .39** (.92) 6. MOCBI Guilt .74** .26** .25** .32** .49** (.96) 7. MOCBO .85** .57** .58** .75** .59** .50** (.94) 8. MOCBO Prosocial Values .64** .69** .63** .59** .23** .27** .70** (.93) 9. MOCBO Guilt .49** .35** .39** .34** .23** .42** .62** .38** (.97) 10. MOCBO Org Concern and Obligation .69** .50** .49** .89** .32** .29** .78** .59** .29** (.95) 11. MOCBO Achievement .62** .38** .42** .58** .48** .33** .79** .45** .20** .65** (.91) 12. MOCBO Instrumental .59** .18** .20** .34** .79** .42** .67** .19** .20** .34** .62** (.94) 13. CMS .81** .67** .68** .71** .51** .42** .78** .70** .34** .69** .62** .43** 14. CMS Org Concern .65** .54** .55** .77** .31** .25** .65** .61** .20** .76** .58** .26** 15. CMS Prosocial Values .61** .79** .72** .55** .15*.23** .56** .72** .32** .54** .40** .08 16. CMS Instrumental .69** .34** .42** .41** .72** .51** .66** .39** .33** .39** .51** .66** OCB Antecedents 17. Agreeableness .15* .46** .28** .25** .13 .10 .16* .38** .03.28** .07 -.12 18. Conscientiousness .07.17** .17*.09 .02 .08 .07 .14* -.10 .13* .16* -.01 19. Affective Commitment .35** .33* .33** .53** .10.03.41** .39** .12.55** .37** .12 20. Cont inuance Commitment .23** .10 .15*.21** .18** .13* .27** .16* .18** .20** .19** .21** 21. Distributive Justice .21** .15* .23** .21** .13.06.22** .21** .11.24** .21** .05 22. Procedural Justice .32** .23** .29** .46** .12.06.34** .35** .08.48** .29** .10 23. Interpersonal Justice .03.04 .01.11 .01 .04 .05 .11 -.12 .17** .11 -.03 24. Perceived Org Support .35** .26** .24** .45** .19** .13* .36** .30** .01.49** .35** .19** 25. Job Satisfacti on .08.14* .14*.21** .02 .11 .14* .13.05.24** .16* -.03 OCB 26. OCBI Frequency (self) .20** .35** .31** .31** .11 .01 .19** .32** .12.30** .11 -.11 27. OCBI Effectiveness (self) .15* .25** .26** .22** -.0 7 .02 .12 .24** .07.18** .08 -.10 28. OCBO Frequency (self) .19** .28** .22** .34** .02 .03 .25** .33** .10.31** .25** -.01 29. OCBO Effectiveness (self) .19** .22** .24** .25** .02.03.16* .24** .06.20** .15* -.04 30. OCBI Frequency (supervisor) .08.21* .15.16 .09 .09 .10 .13.01.18 .07 -.02 31. OCBI Effectiveness (supervisor).04 .17 .11.05 .15 -.20*-.02 .09 -.15 .14 .05 -.13 32. OCBO Frequency (supervisor) .11.26** .19*.15 .05 .09 .14 .15 -.03 .19 .13.07 33. OCBO Effectiveness (supervisor) .01.19 .18.01 .08 .16 .04 .12 -.12 .09 .08 -.01 Covariates 34. Gender .09.14* .11.01.04.06.10 .15* .08.02 .09.02 35. Tenure .03 .01 .02 .14* .12 .09 -.01 .04.05.08 .01 -.17** Mean3.99 4.88 4.58 4.13 4.01 2.38 4.19 4.51 3.57 4.18 4.61 4.10 SD 0.86 0.90 0.99 1.28 1.34 1.63 0.95 1.14 1.61 1.28 1.17 1.48 Note: Reliability estimates app ear on the diagonal; N = 224 and N = 107 for superv isor correlations; ** p<.01; *p<.05 (two-tailed)

PAGE 97

82 Table 24. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study 4 Variables (continued) Variable 131415 1617181920212223 24 OCB Motives 1. MOCBI 2. MOCBI Prosocial Values 3. MOCBI Intimacy 4. MOCBI Org Concern and Obligation 5. MOCBI Instrumental 6. MOCBI Guilt 7. MOCBO 8. MOCBO Prosocial Values 9. MOCBO Guilt 10. MOCBO Org Concern and Obligation 11. MOCBO Achievement 12. MOCBO Instrumental 13. CMS (.95) 14. CMS Org Concern .86** (.94) 15. CMS Prosocial Values .82** .68** (.95) 16. CMS Instrumental .76** .42** .37** (.92) OCB Antecedents 17. Agreeableness .33** .37** .53** -.02 (.81) 18. Conscientiousness .14 .21** .17* -.02 .30** (.80) 19. Affective Commitment .46** .68** .37** .09.35** .18** (.86) 20. Continuance Commitment .20** .18* .12.18* -.14* .11 .18** (.81) 21. Distributive Justice .33** .39** .23** .20** .09 .04 .40** .07 (.94) 22. Procedural Justice .44** .61** .31** .15* .29** .12.63** .02.49** (.90) 23. Interpersonal Justice .13 .29** .05 -.01 .11.27** .38** .08.20** .46** (.93) 24. Perceived Org Support .48** .68** .32** .17* .29** .13* .65** -.03 .38** .75** .47** (.95) 25. Job Satisfaction .21** .42** .21** -.09 .31** .14* .64** .08.39** .45** .40** .56** OCB 26. OCBI Frequency (self) .30** .37** .41** -.01 .39** .25** .29** .01.18** .29** .16* .24** 27. OCBI Effectiveness (self) .24** .26** .32** .05.22** .15* .14* .08.16* .19** .18** .17* 28. OCBO Frequency (self) .28** .42** .32** -.02 .31** .26** .34** .08.17* .35** .24** .32** 29. OCBO Effectiveness (self) .24** .29** .28** .04.21** .20** .16* .06.19** .24** .34** .25** 30. OCBI Frequency (supervisor) .14 .19.28* -.09 .14.06 .13 -.01 .05.14.06 .14 31. OCBI Effectiveness (supervisor) .06 .13.20 -.16 .23* .13 .14 -.04 .10.16.16.21* 32. OCBO Frequency (supervisor) .17 .25* .27* -.07 .20* .10 .12 .01 .02 .12.11 .13 33. OCBO Effectiveness (supervisor) .09 .13.16 -.06 .19* .19* .12 -.08 .01.20* .25** .23* Covariates 34. Gender .07 .01.12.04.06.14* .04 -.02.02 -. 06 -.07.08 35. Tenure .02 .09.00 -.13 .04 .09 .34** .16* .16* .08 -.05.01 Mean 4.32 4.43 4.67 3.864.424.54 3.71 3.412.983.28 4.25 3.58SD 0.88 1.10 0.96 1.200.600.56 0.98 0.911.230.93 0.89 1.01 Note : Reliability estimates appear on the diagonal; N = 224 and N = 107 for supervisor correlations; ** p< .01; *p<.05 (two-tailed)

PAGE 98

83 Table 24. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study 4 Variables Variable2526272829303132333435OCB Motives 1.MOCBI2.MOCBI Prosocial Values3.MOCBI Intimacy4.MOCBI Org Concern and Obligation5.MOCBI Instrumental6.MOCBI Guilt7.MOCBO8.MOCBO Prosocial Values9.MOCBO Guilt 10.MOCBO Org Concern and Obligation11.MOCBO Achievement12.MOCBO Instrumental13.CMS14.CMS Org Concern15.CMS Prosocial Values16.CMS Instrumental OCB Antecedents 17.Agreeableness18.Conscientiousness19.Affective Commitment20.Continuance Commitment21.Distributive Justice22.Procedural Justice23.Interpersonal Justice24.Perceived Org Support25.Job Satisfaction(.85) OCB 26.OCBI Frequency (self).15*(.80)27.OCBI Effectiveness (self).08.67**(.85)28.OCBO Frequency (self).23**.63**.50**(.80)29.OCBO Effectiveness (self).14*.44**.71**.63**(.81 ) 30.OCBI Frequency (supervisor).05.50**.39**.34**.40 **(.83) 31.OCBI Effectiveness (supervisor).14.44**.48**.44* *.52**.83**(.89) 32.OCBO Frequency (supervisor).01.33**.34**.44**.47 **.73**.74**(.85) 33.OCBO Effectiveness (supervisor).10.29**.39**.40* *.57**.69**.82**.87**(.88) Covariates 34.Gender-.05.09.06-.04.06.04.12.04.10-35.Tenure.16*.07-.03.10-.07.03-.05.02-.08-.11Mean4.264.104.124.154.044.284.194.284.181.752.89SD1.020.640.690.640.680.620.710.630.720.441.30Note: Reliability estimates appear on the diagonal; N = 224 and N = 107 for supervisor correlations; * p<.01; *p<.05 (two-tailed)

PAGE 99

84 Regression Analyses. Hypotheses 19-20 were tested by performing a series of hierarchical regression analyses. Specifically, OCB frequency was regressed on the covariates (i.e., gender and tenure) at step 1, fol lowed by GSMS motives at step 2. Hypotheses 21-24 were also tested with hierarchical regression analyses by regressing OCB frequency on the covariates at step 1, personal ity/attitudinal variables at step 2, and GSMS motives at step 3. To test Hypotheses 25 and 2 7, OCB effectiveness was regressed on the covariates at step 1, followed by GSMS motiv es at step 2. Hypotheses 26 and 28 were tested using a relative weights analysis to id entify the relative impact for each OCB motive on OCB. Lastly, Hypothesis 29 was tested by performing a hierarchical regression in two different orders. The first order involved r egressing OCB frequency on the covariates at step 1, CMS at step 2, and GSMS at st ep 3 to identify the incremental variance of the GSMS. The second order regressed OC B frequency on the covariates at step 1, the GSMS at step 2, and the CMS at step 3 t o identify the incremental variance of the CMS. GSMS Motives and OCB. Hypotheses 19 posited a positive relationship betw een MOCBI and OCBI and was supported for self-reported OCBI but not supervisor-reported OCBI (see Table 25). After separating MOCBI into it s respective dimensions, results revealed significant beta weights for the dimension s of Prosocial Values (b = .18, p <.05), Organizational Concern and Obligation (b = .29; p < .01) and Instrumental (b = .25; p < .01) motives when predicting self-reported OCBI (see Table 26). Likewise, MOCBO was positively related to self-reported OCBO (see Table 27), supporting Hypothesis 20. When examining the predictability of specific MOCBO dimensions, the Prosocial Values (b = .22, p <.01), Achievement (b = .21, p <.05), and Instrumental (b =

PAGE 100

85 -.21, p <.05) motives accounted for significant variance i n self-reported OCBO (see Table 28). Table 25. Hierarchical Regression for OCBI on the MOCBI Subsc ale SelfSupervisor Step 1 Demographic Gender.09.05Tenure.08.04F1.49.17R-Square.01.00 Step 2 DemographicGender.08.04Tenure.08.03MOCBI Subscale.20**.08 F8.76**.57 R-Square.04.01 Full Model F3.95.30Full Model R-Square.05.01 Predictors OCBI Frequency Note : N = 224 (self), N = 107 (supervisor) Values reported in the table are standardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the st ep in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 101

86 Table 26. Hierarchical Regression for OCBI on MOCBI Subscale Dimensions SelfSupervisor Step 1 Demographic Gender.09.05Tenure.08.04F1.49.17R-Square.01.00 Step 2 DemographicGender.06.06Tenure.00-.01MOCBIProsocial Values.18*.13Intimacy.13.04Org Concern and Obligation.29**.15Instrumental-.25**-.11Guilt-.06-.10 F11.91**1.62 R-Square.21.08 Full Model F9.04**1.21Full Model R-Square.23.08 Predictors OCBI Frequency Note : N = 224 (self), N = 107 (supervisor) Values reported in the table are standardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the st ep in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 102

87 Table 27. Hierarchical Regression for OCBO on the MOCBO Subsc ale SelfSupervisor Step 1 Demographic Gender-.03.04Tenure.09.03F1.14.11R-Square.01.00 Step 2 DemographicGender-.05.03Tenure.09.02MOCBO Subscale.26**.13 F16.02**1.76 R-Square.07.02 Full Model F6.15**.66Full Model R-Square.08.02 Predictors OCBO Frequency Note : N = 224 (self), N = 107 (supervisor) Values reported in the table are standardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the st ep in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 103

88 Table 28. Hierarchical Regression for OCBO on MOCBO Subscale Dimensions SelfSupervisor Step 1 Demographic Gender-.03.04Tenure.09.03F1.14.11R-Square.01.00 Step 2 DemographicGender-.09.04Tenure.04.02MOCBOProsocial Values.22**.07Guilt-.01-.10Org Concern and Obligation.11.18Achievement.21*-.04Instrumental-.21*.05 F8.00**.96 R-Square.16.05 Full Model F6.09**.72Full Model R-Square.17.05 Predictors OCBO Frequency Note : N = 224 (self), N = 107 (supervisor) Values reported in the table are standardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the st ep in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed). Relative Importance of Personality, Attitudes, and Motives for Predicting OCB. Hypothesis 21 predicted that MOCBI motives would ac count for incremental variance over personality and was supported for self-reporte d OCBI (see Table 29). In particular, MOCBI Organizational Concern and Obligation (b = .25, p <.01) and Instrumental (b = .22, p <.01) motives were predictive of self-reported OCB I. Hypothesis 22 posited that MOCBO motives would account for unique variance abo ve and beyond personality and was also supported for self-reported OCBO (see Tabl e 30). MOCBO Achievement (b = .20, p <.05) was predictive of OCBO beyond personality va riables of agreeableness and

PAGE 104

89 conscientiousness. For self-reported OCBI, MOCBI Pr osocial Values (b = .18, p <.05), Organizational Concern and Obligation (b = .23, p <.05), and Instrumental (b = -.25, p <.01) motives accounted for incremental variance ab ove and beyond attitudinal variables of organizational commitment, organizational justic e, job satisfaction, and perceived organizational support, demonstrating support for H ypothesis 23 (see Table 31). Hypothesis 24 was also supported for self-reported OCBO, such that MOCBO Prosocial Values (b = .18, p <.05), Achievement (b = .21, p <.05), and Instrumental (b = -.20, p <.05) motives accounted for incremental variance be yond that of attitudinal OCB antecedents (see Table 32).

PAGE 105

90 Table 29. Hierarchical Regression for OCBI on Personality and MOCBI Subscale Dimensions SelfSupervisor Step 1 Demographic Gender.09.05Tenure.08.04F1.49.17R-Square.01.00 Step 2 DemographicGender.05.05Tenure.07.02PersonalityAgreeableness.34**.14Conscientiousness.15*.00 F22.60**1.00 R-Square.17.02 Step 3 DemographicGender.04.07Tenure.02-.02PersonalityAgreeableness.19**.01Conscientiousness.13*-.04MOCBIProsocial Values.08.13Intimacy.12.05Org Concern and Obligation.25**.15Instrumental-.22**-.11Guilt-.01-.11 F5.7**1.22 R-Square.10.06 Full Model F9.17**.94Full Model R-Square.28.08 Predictors OCBI Frequency Note : N = 224 (self), N = 107 (supervisor). Values reported in the table a re standardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the st ep in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 106

91 Table 30. Hierarchical Regression for OCBO on Personality and MOCBO Subscale Dimensions SelfSupervisor Step 1 Demographic Gender-.03.04Tenure.09.03F1.14.11R-Square.01.00 Step 2 DemographicGender-.07.04Tenure.10.01PersonalityAgreeableness.24**.20Conscientiousness.21**.02 F16.88**2.24 R-Square.13.04 Step 3 DemographicGender-.11.05Tenure.06.01PersonalityAgreeableness.15*.16Conscientiousness.18**.01MOCBOProsocial Values.14.01Guilt.04-.06Org Concern and Obligation.07.15Achievement.20*-.03Instrumental-.15.07 F4.48*.49 R-Square.08.02 Full Model F6.85**.78Full Model R-Square.22.07 Predictors OCBO Frequency Note : N = 224 (self), N = 107 (supervisor) Values reported in the table are standardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the st ep in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 107

92 Table 31. Hierarchical Regression for OCBI on Attitudes and M OCBI Subscale Dimensions SelfSupervisor Step 1 Demographic Gender .09.05 Tenure .08,04 F 1.49.169 R-Square.01.00 Step 2 DemographicGender .10.07 Tenure .00.00 AttitudesAffective Commitment.23*.09Continuance Commitment-.03-.21Distributive Justice.04.02Procedural Justice.15.06Interpersonal Justice.04-.04Job Satisfaction-.08-.06Perceived Organizational Support-.01.11 F 3.67**.42 R-Square.12.03 Step 3 DemographicGender .07.07 Tenure .00.01 AttitudesAffective Commitment.03-.05Continuance Commitment-.03-.01Distributive Justice.07.08Procedural Justice.07-.01Interpersonal Justice.09-.09Job Satisfaction-.06-.05Perceived Organizational Support.01.18MOCBI Prosocial Values.18*.13Intimacy .11.05 Org Concern and Obligation.23*.14Instrumental-.25**-.11Guilt -.05-.14 F 7.49**1.28 R-Square.13.06 Full Model F5.05**.69Full Model R-Square.25.10 Predictors OCBI Frequency Note : N = 224 (self), N = 107 (supervisor) Values reported in the table are standardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the st ep in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 108

93 Table 32. Hierarchical Regression for OCBO on Attitudes and M OCBO Subscale Dimensions SelfSupervisor Step 1 Demographic Gender -.03.04 Tenure .09.03 F 1.14.11 R-Square.01.00 Step 2 DemographicGender -.01.05 Tenure .04-.00 Attitudes Affective Commitment.15.12Continuance Commitment.05-.00Distributive Justice-.02-.05Procedural Justice.18.03Interpersonal Justice.08.07Job Satisfaction-.02-.15Perceived Organizational Support.07.10 F 5.10**.55 R-Square.15.04 Step 3 DemographicGender -.06.05 Tenure .03.03 AttitudesAffective Commitment.04.04Continuance Commitment.04-.03Distributive Justice-.04-.02Procedural Justice.14-.02Interpersonal Justice.08.08Job Satisfaction.01-.12Perceived Organizational Support.07.08MOCBOProsocial Values.18*.04Guilt .02-.09 Org Concern and Obligation-.01.18Achievement.21*-.05Instrumental-.20*.05 F 3.44**.42 R-Square.07.02 Full Model F4.12**.43Full Model R-Square.22.06 Predictors OCBO Frequency Note : N = 224 (self), N = 107 (supervisor) Values reported in the table are standardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the st ep in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 109

94 GSMS Motives and OCB Effectiveness. Hypothesis 25, which stated that MOCBI was predictive of OCBI effectiveness, was supported for self-reported OCBI (see Table 33). Hypothesis 25 was not supported for supervisor -reported OCBI. Furthermore, after breaking down MOCBI into its respective subscales, MOCBI Organizational Concern and Obligation (b = .20, p <.05) and Instrumental (b = -.18, p <.05) motives were predictive of OCBI effectiveness (see Table 34). To test Hypothesis 26, relative importance was calculated. This involved determinin g the contributions that predictors make to R2, both their unique contributions as well as their contributions when other predictors are considered (LeBreton, Hargis, Griepe ntrog, Oswald, & Ployhart, 2007). To do so I calculated relative weights (see Johnson, 2 000), which can be used to rank order predictors in terms of their relative importance (s ee Table 35). When predicting selfreported OCBI effectiveness ratings, results sugges ted Intimacy was the most important predictor (relative weight [RW] = .038, while Guilt (RW = .005) was the least. Rescaled relative weights (i.e., RW divided by model R2) indicated the percentage of the predicted criterion variance attributed to each predictor and were also reported in Table 35. Results demonstrated that self-transcendence motives (i.e., Prosocial Values, Organizational Concern and Obligation, and Intimacy) contributed m ore to the prediction of OCBI effectiveness compared to conservation (i.e., Guilt ) and self-enhancement (i.e., Instrumental) motives, supporting Hypothesis 26. Similar to the MOCBI subscale, the MOCBO subscale was predictive of selfreported OCBO effectiveness, supporting Hypothesis 27 (see Table 36). However, after breaking the MOCBO subscale into its respective dim ensions, Instrumental motives (b =

PAGE 110

95 -.21, p <.05) surfaced as the only motive predictive of se lf-reported OCBO effectiveness (see Table 37). To test Hypothesis 28, relative imp ortance analysis revealed Prosocial Values (RW = .035) was the most important predictor and Guilt (RW = .002) was the least important predictor of self-reported OCBO eff ectiveness. When examining the rescaled relative weights, self-transcendence motiv es (i.e., Prosocial Values and Organizational Concern and Obligation) contributed more to the prediction of selfreported OCBO effectiveness compared to self-enhanc ement (i.e., Achievement and Instrumental) and conservation (i.e., Guilt) motive s, supporting Hypothesis 28 (see Table 38). Table 33. Hierarchical Regression for OCBI Effectiveness on t he MOCBI Subscale SelfSupervisor Step 1 Demographic Gender.06.11Tenure-.02-.04F.44.80R-Square.00.02 Step 2 DemographicGender.04.12Tenure-.02-.03MOCBI Subscale.14*-.05 F4.66*.25 R-Square.02.00 Full Model F1.85.61Full Model R-Square.03.02 Predictors OCBI Effectiveness Note : N = 224 (self), N = 107 (supervisor) Values reported in the table are standardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the st ep in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 111

96 Table 34. Hierarchical Regression for OCBI Effectiveness on M OCBI Subscale Dimensions SelfSupervisor Step 1 Demographic Gender.06.11Tenure-.02-.04F.44.80R-Square.00.02 Step 2 DemographicGender.03.13Tenure-.08-.07MOCBIProsocial Values.10.14Intimacy.16.03Org Concern and Obligation.20*.10Instrumental-.18*-.13Guilt-.06-.19 F6.13**2.05 R-Square.12.09 Full Model F4.52**1.70Full Model R-Square.13.11 Predictors OCBI Effectiveness Note : N = 224 (self), N = 107 (supervisor) Values reported in the table are standardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the st ep in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed). Table 35. Relative Weights Analysis of the MOCBI Dimensions Note : RW = Relative weights; % = Rescaled relative weig hts (RW divided by model R2). RW % RW % MOCBI Prosocial Values .031 25.5 .02726.8 Intimacy .038 31.4 .0099.2 Org Concern and Obligation .033 27.2 .0054.9 Instrumental .015 12.1 .01717.3 Guilt .0053.8.04241.7 Model R 2 Predictors OCBI Effectiveness (self) OCBI Effectiveness (supervisor) .12.10

PAGE 112

97 Table 36. Hierarchical Regression for OCBO Effectiveness on t he MOCBO Subscale SelfSupervisor Step 1 Demographic Gender.06.09Tenure-.06-.07F.90.79R-Square.01.02 Step 2 DemographicGender.04.09Tenure-.06-.07MOCBO Subscale.15*.03 F5.15*.10 R-Square.02.00 Full Model F2.33.55Full Model R-Square.03.02 Predictors OCBO Effectiveness Note : N = 224 (self), N = 107 (supervisor) Values reported in the table are standardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the st ep in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 113

98 Table 37. Hierarchical Regression for OCBO Effectiveness on t he MOCBO Subscale SelfSupervisor Step 1 Demographic Gender.06.09Tenure-.06-.07F .90.79 R-Square.01.02 Step 2 DemographicGender.02.09Tenure-.12-.08MOCBOProsocial Values.16.09Guilt-.01-.16Org Concern and Obligation.10.07Achievement.14.04Instrumental-.21*-.03 F4.21**.83 R-Square.09.04 Full Model F3.28**.82Full Model R-Square.10.06 Predictors OCBO Effectiveness Note : N = 224 (self), N = 107 (supervisor) Values reported in the table are standardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the st ep in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 114

99 Table 38. Relative Weights Analysis of the MOCBO Dimensions Note : RW = Relative weights; % = Rescaled relative weig hts (RW divided by model R2). GSMS and CMS as Predictors of OCB. Tables 39 and 40 present hierarchical regressions for OCB regressed on the two OCB motive s measures. The predictors were entered in two different orders. Specifically, for the first order, the CMS was entered in first followed by the relevant GSMS subscale. For t he second order, the relevant GSMS subscale was entered first followed by the CMS. For OCBI, findings revealed nonsignificant incremental variance accounted for when either the GSMS (F (5, 181) = 1.79, p = .12) or the CMS (F (3, 181) = 1.82, p = .15) was entered into the regression equation at the last step, failing to support Hypot hesis 29a. For OCBO, findings revealed the GSMS did not account for significant incrementa l variance (F (5, 181) = .88, p = .50) beyond that of the CMS. However, the CMS accou nted for significant incremental variance (F (3, 181) = 6.70, p < .01) beyond that of the GSMS. Specifically, CMS’s Organizational Concern (b =.43, p < .01) and Impression Management (b = -.27, p < .01) motives were significant predictors of OCBO increme ntal to the GSMS, failing to support Hypothesis 29b. RW % RW % MOCBO Prosocial Values .035 42.2 .01531.1 Guilt .0022.1.02347.0 Org Concern and Obligation .019 22.5 .00510.4 Achievement .015 18.3 ,0048.4 Instrumental .012 14.9 .0023.1 Model R 2 Predictors OCBO Effectiveness (self) OCBO Effectiveness (supervisor) .08.05

PAGE 115

100 Table 39. Hierarchical Regression for OCB on the CMS and GSMS First Order OCBI Frequency OCBO Frequency Step 1 Demographic Step 1 Demographic Gender.09Gender-.01Tenure.05Tenure.07F.97F.48R-Square.01R-Square.01 Step 2 Demographic Step 2 Demographic Gender.06Gender-.03Tenure-.01Tenure-.00CMS CMS Org Concern.25**Org Concern.44**Prosocial Values.32**Prosocial Values.12Impression Management-.23**Impression Management-.2 5 F17.40** F17.75** R-Square.22** R-Square.22 Step 3 Demographic Step 3 Demographic Gender.05Gender-.06Tenure-.01Tenure-.01CMS CMS Org Concern.20Org Concern.43**Prosocial Values.09Prosocial Values.02Impression Management-.11Impression Management-.27* MOCBI MOCBO Prosocial Values.15Prosocial Values.13Intimacy.13Guilt.06Org Concern and Obligation.09Org Concern and Obliga tion-.09 Instrumental-.19Achievement.15Guilt-.06Instrumental-.07 F1.79 F.88 R-Square.04 R-Square.02 Full Model F6.48**Full Model F5.87**Full Model R-Square.26Full Model R-Square.25 Predictors Order 1 Predictors Order 1 Note : N = 224 (self). Values reported in the table are sta ndardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the step in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

PAGE 116

101 Table 40. Hierarchical Regression for OCB on the CMS and GSMS Second Order OCBI Frequency OCBO Frequency Step 1 Demographic Step 1 Demographic Gender.09Gender-.01Tenure.05Tenure.07F.97F.48R-Square.01R-Square.01 Step 2 Demographic Step 2 Demographic Gender.04Gender-.08Tenure.00Tenure.03MOCBI MOCBO Prosocial Values.22*Prosocial Values.20Intimacy.16Guilt.02 Org Concern and Obligation.24**Org Concern and Obl igation.11 Instrumental-.26**Achievement.23*Guilt-.08Instrumental-.25** F11.22** F6.84** R-Square.23 R-Square.16 Step 3 Demographic Step 3 Demographic Gender.05Gender-.06Tenure-.01Tenure-.01MOCBI MOCBO Prosocial Values.15Prosocial Values.13Intimacy.13Guilt.06Org Concern and Obligation.09Org Concern and Obliga tion-.09 Instrumental-.19Achievement.15Guilt-.06Instrumental-.07CMS CMS Org Concern.20Org Concern.43**Prosocial Values.09Prosocial Values.02Impression Management-.11Impression Management-.27* F1.82 F6.70** R-Square.02 R-Square.08 Full Model F6.48**Full Model F5.87**Full Model R-Square0.26Full Model R-Square.25 Predictors Order 2 Predictors Order 2 Note : N = 224 (self). Values reported in the table are sta ndardized regression coefficients, which correspond to the step in which the variable was entered. p < .05 ** p < .01 (two-tailed). Study 4 Discussion Study 4 established the criterion validity of the GSMS by investigating relationships between the two GSMS subscales (i.e., MOCBI and MOCBO) in addition to their respective OCB motive dimensions and the c riteria of OCBI and OCBO. As recommended by researchers (Bolino, 1999; Bolino, T urnley, & Niehoff, 2004; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006), the predictive valid ity of OCB motives was examined

PAGE 117

102 beyond the traditional frequency measure of OCB by way of OCB effectiveness ratings. Overall, with the exception of Hypothesis 29, which compared the predictive validity of the GSMS and CMS, all hypotheses were supported for self-reported measures of OCB. Given the increased likelihood of finding signific ant relationships with self-report data is potentially attributable to common method b ias, aspects of the criterion validation study served as strategies for mitigating the occur rence of common method bias. For example, predictor and criterion data were collecte d at two different time points via two distinct surveys – the OCB antecedents survey and t he OCB criterion survey. Podsakoff and his colleagues (2003) recommend a temporal sepa ration as one procedural remedy to common method bias, arguing that it reduces the sal ience of prior responses and increases the likelihood of responses from the first survey t o exit short-term memory. Second, OCB antecedents were measured using items from establis hed and validated scales. Careful construction of scale items to reduce ambiguity and the use of different response scale formats between predictor and criterion are additio nal recommended remedies to combat common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In the present study, the OCB antecedent survey utilized a 6-point Likert scale while the OC B criterion survey consisted of a 5point Likert scale assessing two dimensions (i.e., frequency and effectiveness of OCB). Lastly, protecting the respondent’s anonymity reduc es his/her evaluation apprehension, serving as yet another strategy to minimize common method bias through the decreased motivation for committing response errors (e.g., so cial desirability, leniency, acquiescence, and consistency). GSMS Motives and OCB. Hypotheses (i.e., H19 and H20) predicting positive relationships between OCB motive subscales and thei r respective OCBs were supported.

PAGE 118

103 When further examining the specific relationships b etween the MOCBI dimensions and OCB towards individuals, three out of the five moti ve dimensions were significant – Prosocial Values, Organizational Concern and Obliga tion, and Instrumental motives. Similar to previous findings (e.g., Becker & O’Hair 2007; Finkelstein, 2006; Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Tan & Tan, 20 08), Prosocial Values and Organizational Concern motives were positively rela ted to OCBI. Interestingly, Instrumental motives were negatively related to OCB I, implying that individuals admitting to performing OCBI in exchange for reward s were less likely to actually engage in OCB towards others. This finding is consi stent with researchers’ (Bolino, 1999; Bolino, Turnley, & Niehoff, 2004) proposition that individuals with instrumental reasons for performing OCB may be less consistent a nd may exhibit OCB less often compared to those with altruistic motives. In line with this reasoning, Hui and his colleagues (2000) found lowered levels of OCB after receipt of desired outcomes (i.e., promotions) amongst individuals perceiving OCB as i nstrumental. Despite Bolino’s proposition (see Bolino, 1999; Bolino et al., 2004) that employees may partake in OCB seeking to make amends for past transgressions, gui lt was not a significant predictor of OCBI. It is possible that respondents were hesitant to endorse Guilt motives due to social desirability responding. Additionally, Intimacy was not significantly related to OCBI. Perhaps, individuals do not perceive work as an out let for fostering friendships and therefore are less likely to partake in OCB to expa nd their social networks. In support of this, Frone (2003) purports that some individuals p erceive their work and personal life as distinct domains that do not intertwine with each o ther.

PAGE 119

104 When looking at the relationships between the MOCBO dimensions and OCBO, three out of the five motive dimensions emerged as significant – Prosocial Values, Achievement, and Instrumental motives. Similar to p rior research (e.g., Becker & O’Hair, 2007; Finkelstein, 2006; Finkelstein & Penner, 2004 ; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Tan & Tan, 2008), Prosocial Values motives were significantly related to OCB directed towards the organization. However, contrary to previous finding s, Organizational Concern and Obligation motives were not significantly related t o OCBO (e.g., Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; Rioux & Penner, 2001). Further examination of the CMS Organizational Concern items revealed an underlying affective component ve rsus obligatory component, potentially reducing the GSMS’s Organizational Conc ern and Obligation link with OCBO. Achievement motives were positively related t o OCBO, replicating extant research examining value for achievement and OCB (N euman & Kickul, 1998). Individuals with Achievement motives strive to atta in accomplishments and attain goals in a socially desirable manner through participatio n in OCBOs, like keeping abreast of changes within the organization or taking initiativ e to solve a work problem. Similar to the MOCBI subscale, Instrumental motives were negat ively related to OCBO. As mentioned above, employees with instrumental reason s may partake in OCBO less frequently than those with alternative motives beca use they perceive OCB as a means to an end. Additionally, compared to OCBI, OCB directe d towards the organization is less likely to be recognized or rewarded by those key co nstituents controlling such rewards. Relative Importance of Personality, Attitudes, and Motives for Predicting OCB. Given that personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness are established antecedents of OCB, H21 and H22 assessed the unique variance accounted for by OCB

PAGE 120

105 motives beyond that of personality. Agreeable indiv iduals foster group cohesion and are concerned about the welfare of the group (Illies et al., 2006), increasing their likelihood of performing OCB. Likewise, conscientious individu als are reliable, motivated, and diligent—characteristics conducive to the performan ce of OCB. Results demonstrated significant positive relationships between personal ity (i.e., agreeableness and conscientiousness) and OCB (i.e., OCBI and OCBO). A fter including OCB motives in the regression equation, Organizational Concern and Obligation and Instrumental motives arose as significant predictors of OCBI. Recent res earch (Chen, Lin, Tung, & Ko, 2008) found significant relationships between social exch ange and impression management motives and OCBI. Individuals perceiving OCB from a social exchange perspective (i.e., Organizational Concern and Obligation) partake in O CBs if they perceive their work situation as fair. More specifically, if an individ ual’s manager treats him/her fairly, this increases the likelihood of the employee to recipro cate through performance of helpful behaviors targeting an individual—especially one th at control’s rewards. Contrary to Chen and colleagues’ findings, which found a positi ve relationship between impression management motives and OCBI, the relationship betwe en Instrumental motives, which included impression management items, and OCBI was negative. In a qualitative study looking at the difference between “good soldiers” a nd “good actors,” Snell and Wong (2007) found that “good actors” with impression man agement motives were typically identified through inconsistent behaviors. For exam ple, coaching an employee only when key stakeholders were present to observe was a cite d example from the study. Thus, it is plausible that behavioral inconsistency contributes to an overall decreased frequency of

PAGE 121

106 OCB compared to individuals not using OCB as a mean s to desired outcomes, explaining the negative relationship. For OCBO, Achievement was the sole significant mot ive antecedent beyond after personality variables were accounted for. Aspects o f OCB contribute to the need fulfillment of those individuals with an achievemen t orientation. For example, OCBOs include taking the initiative to solve a work probl em, persisting during tasks, and keeping abreast of organizational changes—behaviors contrib uting to career-related success within organizations. As mentioned above, Neuman an d Kickul (1998) found a significant relationship between individuals who va lued achievement and the performance of OCB. H23 and H24 examined the incremental validity of O CB motives beyond established attitudinal OCB antecedents (i.e., orga nizational commitment, organizational justice, job satisfaction, and perceived organizati onal support). For OCBI, Prosocial Values, Organizational Concern and Obligation, and Instrumental motives accounted for unique variance in OCBI beyond attitudinal OCB ante cedents. Prosocial Values, Achievement, and Instrumental motives accounted for incremental variance in OCBO beyond established attitudinal OCB antecedents. Ove rall, findings suggested OCB motives accounted for unique variance in OCB beyond that of established personality and attitudinal OCB antecedents, supporting H21-H24 as well as expanding upon Rioux and Penner’s (2001) findings. GSMS Motives and OCB Effectiveness. To further explore the possible impact of non-altruistic motives on OCB, I examined the predi ctive relationships between OCB motives and OCB effectiveness ratings (H25 and H27) Analyses revealed Organizational

PAGE 122

107 Concern and Obligation and Instrumental motives as driving the significant relationship between MOCBI and OCBI effectiveness ratings, suppo rting H25. Individuals performing OCBs to help the overall organization pe rformed more effective OCBIs. In contrast, individuals performing OCBs for self-serv ing reasons exhibited less effective OCBIs. Bolino (1999) posited that individuals perfo rming OCB for impression management (i.e., Instrumental) reasons may perform OCBs with less devotion and less effort, in turn, reducing the overall quality of OC B. Indeed, Snell and Wong’s (2007) qualitative study introduced the concept of pseudoOCB, where “a colleague might believe that a fellow colleague is merely professin g or pretending to perform the behavioral content of OCB, without actually engagin g in OCB” (p. 886). Content analysis of respondents’ stories revealed four cate gories of OCB—(1) OCB attributed to prosocial or pro-organizational motives, (2) OCB ti ed to impression management motives, (3) pseudo-OCB with minimal compliance, an d (4) pseudo-OCB with counterproductive work behavior (CWB). Pseudo-OCB w ith minimal compliance was also rooted in impression management and involved c laiming to engage in OCB when, in actuality, the individual performed what was minima lly expected of him/her. PseudoOCB with CWB, also rooted in impression management, consisted of an alleged portrayal of OCB, yet, in reality, the employee eng aged in CWB. Snell and Wong’s (2007) study offered empirical evidence that lower quality OCBs occur, are tied to impression management, and can be observed by colle agues. For OCBO effectiveness ratings, Instrumental motiv es surfaced as the sole significant predictor, supporting H27. Like OCBI, i ndividuals performing OCBs toward the organization for instrumental reasons displayed less effective OCBOs. Individuals

PAGE 123

108 performing OCBOs with the intent of attaining desir ed self-serving outcomes and promoting favorable impressions are more likely to perform with less focus on the task at hand and may expend less energy (Bolino, 1999). For example, an individual arriving to work early and staying late may appear to be perfor ming an OCBO, but may actually be conducting personal affairs during these hours. H26 and H28 evaluated the relative importance of t he motive dimensions for each subscale and both were supported. For both subscale s, self-transcendence motives (i.e., Prosocial Values, Organizational Concern and Obliga tion, and Intimacy) contributed the most to the prediction of OCBI and OCBO effectivene ss ratings. Individuals with truly altruistic motives contributed to greater OCB effec tiveness, supporting Bolino’s (1999) proposition. GSMS and CMS as Predictors of OCB. For OCBI and OCBO, the GSMS did not account for incremental validity above the CMS, fai ling to support H29. Furthermore, when the order was reversed, the CMS’s Organization al Concern (OC) and Impression Management (IM) motives accounted for significant i ncremental variance in OCBO beyond that of the GSMS. When comparing the GSMS Or ganizational Concern and Obligation and the CMS Organizational Concern items the CMS Organizational Concern items cover organizational commitment and justice t ype aspects of organizational concern, whereas the GSMS Organizational Concern an d Obligation items center around organizational success and feelings of obligation. These differences may contribute to the incremental variance accounted for by the CMS Organ izational Concern dimension. Additionally, the GSMS Instrumental items and the C MS Impression Management items differed in such a way that the CMS Impression Mana gement items were reworded to

PAGE 124

109 mitigate social desirability responding (see Finkel stein & Penner, 2004), potentially enhancing the predictive validity of the subscale. In sum, Study 4 provided evidence for GSMS’s crite rion-related validity for selfreported OCB. The two subscales of the GSMS, the MO CBI and MOCBO, were significant predictors of OCBI and OCBO, respective ly. Specific dimensions for each subscale surfaced as significant antecedents of OCB Furthermore, the two subscales accounted for incremental variance beyond that of e stablished OCB personality and attitudinal antecedents, supporting the unique cont ributions of the scale. Lastly, the GSMS motive dimensions demonstrated unique relation ships with OCB effectiveness, contributing to the growing body of research examin ing self-enhancing motives for OCB and their impact. The following section provides a general discussion of the entire GSMS validation effort and includes major contributions of the study, study limitations, practical implications, and areas for future research.

PAGE 125

110 Chapter 5: General Discussion The development of the Good Soldier Motives Scale (GSMS) consisted of three primary objectives. The first goal was to incorpora te Schwartz’s values (1992) theory as a framework for the development of the OCB motives di mensions and expand the types of dimensions accounted for by the Rioux and Penner (2 001) Citizenship Motives Scale, which was more empirically derived. The second goal was to extend the empirical support for motives as unique antecedents of OCB be yond well-supported personality and attitudinal predictors. The final objective was to understand the influence of altruistic versus self-serving motives on the effectiveness of OCB. These goals were addressed through the construct and criterion validation effo rts of the GSMS. OCB Motives based on Schwartz’s Values Framework Because values influence the selection of goals by serving as guiding principles, they influence our underlying motives and decisions to partake in certain actions (Schwartz & Rubel, 2005). Parks (2007) found suppor t for values influencing motivation through the goal content (i.e., the types of goals an individual chooses to pursue), whereas personality influenced motivation via goal striving (i.e., the persistence in goal pursuit). Schwartz’s higher-order motivational dime nsions of values served as a springboard to identifying the various types of OCB motivations. Three of the four higher-order value dimensions survived the GSMS sca le development – selfenhancement, self-transcendence, and conservation m otives. Openness to change

PAGE 126

111 motives, consisting of autonomy and competency moti ves, are perhaps more relevant to task performance due to their focus on controlling decisions and exercising skills and abilities. In total, Schwartz’s (1992, 1994) univer sal values offered a nice structure to rationally guide the development of the Good Soldie r Motives Scale. Construct Validity of GSMS Validation studies generate solid support for the G SMS and its respective motive dimensions (Spector, 1992). The GSMS construct vali dation effort involved constructs hypothesized to have differential relationships wit h the various OCB motive dimensions. In particular, regulatory focus, self-identity, Mac hiavellianism, and self-monitoring demonstrated unique relationships with the OCB moti ve dimensions in the hypothesized directions. According to Dewett and Denisi (2007), regulatory focus theory (RFT) serves as a complementary theory to understand the underly ing mechanisms behind OCB and proposed that the types of OCB are impacted by an i ndividual’s regulatory focus, promotion or prevention. Individuals with a promoti on focus are more likely to exhibit change-related OCBs (e.g., providing suggestions), while individuals with a prevention focus are more likely to exhibit maintenance OCBs ( e.g., exercising personal discipline). The construct validation supported Dewett and Denis i’s theoretical proposition, such that individuals with a strong promotion focus were more likely to engage in OCB for selfenhancement reasons (an approach-oriented motive), whereas individuals with a strong prevention focus were more likely to partake in OCB for conservation reasons (an avoidant-oriented motive). Regarding self-identity, Finkelstein and Penner (2004) developed a conceptual model combining the function al/motive perspective of OCB with

PAGE 127

112 role identity. The more an individual identifies wi th the role of a helper, the greater the chance of internalizing the citizen role identity ( Penner et al., 1997). The construct validation study incorporated and extended the noti on of identity to include multiple levels of self-concept – individual, relational, an d collective (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). As expected, individual identity was related to sel f-enhancement motives; relational identity was related to self-transcendence motives; and collective identity was selftranscendence motives. Furthermore, the study provi ded evidence for self-serving personality traits with OCB motives—constructs typi cally associated with impression management behaviors and not formally tested in the OCB literature. As suggested by Bolino and his colleagues (2006), impression manage ment tactics have considerable overlap with OCBs, making it reasonable to assume r elationships with impression management related personality variables (i.e., Mac hiavellianism and self-monitoring). Findings from the construct validation study not on ly demonstrate support for the GSMS but also uncover new conceptual links in the OCB mo tives literature. Criterion Validity of GSMS To complement the construct validation study, the criterion validation effort examined the predictive relationships between the G SMS subscales and its motive dimensions with OCBI and OCBO. The criterion valida tion results identified unique relationships with specific OCB motive dimensions a nd OCBI and OCBO frequency as well as effectiveness ratings. Interestingly, among the six OCB motive dimensions within the GSMS, Guilt and Intimacy failed to demonstrate accountability for variance in either OCBI or OCBO. Perhaps, relative to the other dimens ions, performing OCB based on

PAGE 128

113 guilt for past transgressions or from the need to f oster relationships with other individuals was overshadowed by the other dimensions. It is pos sible that these motives become relevant depending on the context. Moreover, the cr iterion validation extended Rioux and Penner’s (2001) findings that OCB motives serve as unique antecedents of OCB through the examination of additional personality (e.g., ag reeableness and conscientiousness) and attitudinal (e.g., interpersonal justice, affective commitment, continuance commitment, job satisfaction, and perceived organizational supp ort) variables. Lastly, the criterion validation uncovered new territory through the empi rical support of differential relationships between self-enhancement OCB motives and self-transcendence OCB motives with the quality of OCB, measured via effec tiveness ratings. Practical Implications Knowing that OCBs contribute to the effective func tioning of the organization, how can organizations leverage the understanding of an employee’s motivations for engaging in OCB? Additionally, knowing that self-en hancing motives contribute to a decreased level of OCB as well as decreased OCB eff ectiveness, how can organization’s encourage those individuals holding self-enhancing motives to improve their OCBs? The present research facilitates several suggestions fo r practice. First, organizations can educate individuals holding self-enhancing motivati ons through formal training that educates participants on the positive values associ ated with OCB, in addition to identifying the distinctions between true OCB and i mpression management type behaviors. Moreover, training can educate participa nts on effective application of OCBs within the organization’s work culture. Even more, managers can encourage the participation of high-quality OCBs through detailed performance feedback discussions—

PAGE 129

114 a venue conducive to those with instrumental and im pression management type motivations because it affords them the opportunity to understand the links between rewards and performance. In another light, understa nding the motivations underlying OCB during the performance appraisal process can en hance the accuracy of the assessment due to the unveiling of the true motivat ions behind those “above and beyond” behaviors that normally would contribute to the man ager’s assignment of positive ratings. Lastly, assessing OCB motives, especially from an o ther-source perspective, mitigates the occurrence of “pseudo-OCBs,” ineffective perfor mance masked as OCB. Limitations This present research is not without limitations. First, the construct validation and criterion validation studies involved self-report m easures, which enhanced the risk for common method bias and potentially inflates the cor relations among study variables. However, as mentioned above, the design of the crit erion validation study potentially addressed common method bias through the time lag b etween predictor and criterion measurement. Additionally, the sample size for the supervisor-reported OCB was low compared to the sample size for self-reported OCB, potentially reducing power for identifying significant predictor-criterion relatio nships. Future research with larger sample sizes of supervisor-reported OCB is warrante d to uncover the unique relationships of self-reported OCB motives and supervisor-reporte d OCB frequency and effectiveness ratings. Second, based on the samples’ demographics one should interpret findings with caution. For instance, the sample population from t he construct and validation studies were largely female and White non-Hispanic. Althoug h both studies controlled for gender

PAGE 130

115 and demonstrated non-significant relationships with the criterion variables, findings should be interpreted with caution when generalizin g to the workforce. In a similar light, tenure was also controlled for as a potential covar iate of OCB and was negatively related to Achievement and Instrumental motives. The longer an individual was employed with an organization, the least likely they were to perf orm OCBs to satisfy career-oriented goals or to attain organizational rewards (e.g., pr omotions, pay), supporting Wagner and Rush’s (2000) assertion that early career employees are guided by achievement, while seasoned employees are driven by greater affiliatio n. Nonetheless, the overall results from the construc t and criterion validation efforts are promising and complement previous findings exam ining OCB motives (e.g., Rioux & Penner, 2001). Results from the present research ef fort can be interpreted with confidence and serve as a starting point to expand upon extant research examining OCB motivations. Future Research Directions Garnering support for the validity of the GSMS is a n iterative process that occurs over subsequent studies across different contexts a nd different constructs. The present study sampled participants from a variety of organi zations and industries. Future research should examine the GSMS within a single organizatio n to clarify the relationship between organizational level constructs (e.g., poli tical climate, cultural norms) and OCB motives. Additionally, assessment of OCB motives at the aggregate level can contribute to the understanding of how an organization perceiv es OCB (i.e., “the OCB culture”). For instance, some organizations and/or occupations vie w OCB as part of the job, whereas others reward OCB participation. Future research sh ould also investigate OCB motive

PAGE 131

116 attributions from peers and supervisors—especially with self-enhancement motive attributions—to identify its impact on key individu al (e.g., group cohesion, performance ratings) and organizational (e.g., organizational e ffectiveness, customer satisfaction, employee retention) outcomes. Additionally, collect ion of OCB performance from peers, supervisors, and self-ratings would establish a mor e comprehensive assessment of OCB and clarify relationships between various OCB motiv es and OCB based on the recipient (i.e., peer, supervisor, or organization). Alternat ively, within a laboratory context, it is possible to prime different OCB motives to identify which motives cultivate greater OCBI or OCBO. Finally, future research should lever age the GSMS in identifying the mediating role of motives between established perso nality antecedents and OCB, in particular looking at personality antecedents assoc iated with self-enhancement type motives (e.g., Machiavellianism). Conclusion In sum, through the development and validation of an OCB motives scale, the Good Soldier Motives Scale, the present research ex panded the empirical support for OCB motives as unique antecedents as well as establ ished further support for perceiving OCB in a more self-serving manner. Furthermore, the GSMS provides researchers with a theoretically driven OCB motives scale that differe ntiates between OCBI and OCBO motives across six dimensions.

PAGE 132

117 References Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. I n L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 2, 267-299. New York: Academic Press. Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 142-175. Allen, T. D., Barnard, S., Rush, M. C., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). Ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: Does source make a difference ? Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 97-114. Allen, T. D., & M. C. (1998). The effects of orga nizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a labo ratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247-260. Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (2001). The influence o f ratee gender on ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2561-2587. Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Prospects High, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 74-94.

PAGE 133

118 Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001) Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know an d where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9 – 30. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2 002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 43-51. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfac tion and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal 26 587–595. Becker, J. A., & O’Hair, H. D. (2007). Machiavellia ns motives in organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 246-267. Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Values and pe rsonality. European Journal of Personality, 8, 163-181. Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression ma nagement: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24 82-98. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). More than o ne way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management, 29(2), 141-160. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (20 04). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizati onal citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 229-246. Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression-management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 281-297.

PAGE 134

119 Bollen, K.A. 1989. A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17 303-316. 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 in organizations (pp. 71-98) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motow idlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52-69. Bowling, N. A., & Hammond, G. D. (2008). A meta-ana lytic investigation of the construct validity of the Michigan Organizational A ssessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 63-77. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “W e”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1) 8393. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review 11, 710–725. Briggs, S., & Cheek, J. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106-148. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative way s of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

PAGE 135

120 Cammann,C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. ( 1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublish ed manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In G. W. Bohmste dt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the numbe r of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276. Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Re gulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “Feeling Right.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3) 388404. Chen, Y., Lin, C., Tung, Y., & Ko, Y. (2008). Assoc iation of organizational justice and ingratiation with organizational citizenship behavi or: the beneficiary perspective. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(3), 289-302. Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Clark, M. S., & Isen, A. M. (1982). Towards underst anding the relationship between feeling states and social behavior. In A. H. Hastor f, & A. M. Isen (Eds.). Cognitive social psychology (pp. 73-108) Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral scien ces ( 2nd ed .). New York: Academic Press. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The rol e of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processe s, 86 278-321.

PAGE 136

121 Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of or ganizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. Connell, P., & Penner, L.A. (2004). The antecedents of OCB: Motives as mediators Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for I ndustrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). Personality c ontinuity and the changes of adult life. In M. Storandt, & G. R. VandenBos (Eds.), The Adult Years: Continuity and Change. The Master Lectures, 8 (pp. 41-77). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best prac tices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from you r analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9. Retrieved on July 9, 2007 from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Fort Worth:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relatio nship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work be havior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in huma n behavior New York: Plenum.

PAGE 137

122 Dewett, T., & Denisi, A. S. (2007). What motivates organizational citizenship behaviors? Exploring the role of regulatory focus theory. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 241-260. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 13791391. Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural ju stice climate as antecedents of unitlevel organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94. Ehrhart, M. G., & Godfrey, E. G. (2003). The role o f schemas in gender and organizational citizenship research. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference for the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Eisenberger, R. Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & So wa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological res earch. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299. Fandt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). The managemen t of information and impressions: When employees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 140-158.

PAGE 138

123 Finkelstein, M. A. (2006). Dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior: motives, motive fulfillment, and role identity. Social Behavior and Personality, 34(6), 603-616. Finkelstein, M. A., & Penner, L. A. (2004). Predict ing organizational citizenship behavior: integrating the functional and role identity approa ches. Social Behavior and Personality, 32(4), 383-398. Freitas, A. L., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (200 1). Regulatory fit and resisting temptation during goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 38, 291-298. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetric (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (pp. 143-162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: The effects o f positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299-307. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good – doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationshi p. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-329. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-fa ctor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe, (Vol. 7, pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilb urg University Press. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004) Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on paralle l analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191-205.

PAGE 139

124 Hendrickson, A. E., & White, P. O. (1964). Promax: a quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 17, 65-70. Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of expl oratory factor analysis in published research. Common errors and some comment on improv ed practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393-416. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 12801300. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Re gulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 146) New York: Academic Press. Hogan, J., Rybicki, S. L., Motowidlo, S. J., & Borm an, W. C. (1998). Relations between contextual performance, personality, and occupation al advancement. Human Performance, 11, 189-207. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the nu mber of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185. Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2005). They’re right well…mostly right: Research evidence and an agenda to rescues personality testing from 1 960s insights. Human Performance, 18(4), 373-387. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria fo r fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 155.

PAGE 140

125 Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Ins trumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A quasi-field e xperiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 822-828. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879. Ilies, R., Scott, B.A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on individual patterns of citize nship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 561-575. Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estim ating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1-19. Johnson, R. E., & Chang, C.-H. (2008, April). Development and validation of a workbased regulatory focus scale Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, San Franc isco, California. Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a gen eral theory of strategic selfpresentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of wor k values on job choice decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 261-271. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 141-151. Kanfer, R. (1991). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd Ed. (pp. 75-178). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologi sts Press.

PAGE 141

126 Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. Oxford, England: Wiley. Kessler, S.R., Bandelli, A.C., Spector, P.E., Penne y, L., Borman, W.C., & Nelson, C.E. (2007).The Development and Validation of the Organi zational Machiavellian Scale (OMS). Paper presented at the 67th annual meeting o f the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA. Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on th e performance of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 28, 629-648. Kidder, D. L. & Parks, J. M. (2001). The good soldi er: Who is s(he)? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22 939-959. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation mod eling (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press, NY: New York. LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Os wald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007). A multidimensional approach for evaluating variable s in organizational research and practice. Personnel Psychology, 60, 475-498. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citi zenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131-142. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). T he nature of dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical rev iew and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 52-65. Lindeman, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2005). Measuring val ues with the Short Schwartz’s Value Survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(2), 170-178.

PAGE 142

127 Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, val ues, and subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 133-152. Lord, R. G., Hall, R. J., Naidoo, L. J., & Selenta, C. (2004). Do identity levels and positive/negative affective dimensions underlie Sch wartz’s value structure? Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. ( 1998). Some possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role salespe rson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 87-98. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1 991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of manag erial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processe s, 50 123-150. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1 993). The impact of organizational citizenship behaviors on evaluations of performance at different hierarchical levels in sales organizations. Journal of Marketing, 57 70-80. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. B. (1999). Do citizenship behaviors matter more for managers than for salespeople? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 396-410. Markus, H. & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and mallea bility of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 856-866. Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-con cept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

PAGE 143

128 McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Free Press. McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role o f dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examinatio n of the intended beneficiaries of proscoial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836-844. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Midili, A. R. (1995). Unpublished doctoral disserta tion, University of South Florida, Tampa. Moorman, R. H. (1991). The relationship between org anizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions infl uence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 845-855. Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1 998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal 41 351-357. Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B.P., & Organ, D. W. (1993 ). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behaviors: Sorting the e ffects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209-225. Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational citizenship behavior in human resour ce management. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 115-126. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1 997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71-83.

PAGE 144

129 Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evid ence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475480. Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human res ource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13 153-200. Muthn, L., & Muthn, B. (2006). Mplus user’s guide Los Angeles: Muthn & Muthn. Niehoff, B.P. (2000). A motive-based view of organi zational citizenship behaviors: Applying an old lens to a new class of organizational behavi ors. Presented at the Midwest Academy of Management Behavior Conference, Chicago. Neuman, G. A., & Kickul, J. R. (1998). Organization al citizenship behaviors: Achievement orientation and personality. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13(2), 263-279. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, 3rd Ed. New York: McGrawHill. O’Brien, K. E., & Allen, T. D. (in press). The rela tive importance of correlates of organizational citizenship behavior and counterprod uctive work behavior. Human Performance. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Beh avior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship beha vior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10 85-97.

PAGE 145

130 Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive vers us affective determinants of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 157-164. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic re view of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48 775-802. Oyserman, D. (2001). Self-concept and identity. In A. Tesser, & N. Schwarz (Eds.) Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 499-517). Malden, MA: Blackwell Press. Parks, L. (2007). Personality and Values as Predict ors of Motivated Behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting for the Society fo r Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, New York. Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (199 7). Beyond job attitudes: A personality and social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 10(2), 111-131. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. ( 1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work grou p performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262-270. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organi zational citizenship behavior and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351-363 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J-Y, & Pod sakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical r eview of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effect s on followers’ trust in leader,

PAGE 146

131 satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behav iors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Ba chrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the the oretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3) 513-563. Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Borman, C. A., & Bi rjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors o f work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavio r. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159-174. Reeve, J. (2005). Understanding Motivation and Emotion. (4th Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Rioux, S. M. (1998). Assessing personal motives for engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors: A functional approach. Unpub lished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa. Rioux, S.M., & Penner, L.A. (2001). The causes of o rganizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6) 1306-1314. Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. (2000). The rank-o rder consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3-25. Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 255-277. Rohan, M. J., & Zanna, M. P. (2001). Values and ide ologies. In A. Tesser, & N. Schwartz

PAGE 147

132 (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intraindiv idual Processes (pp. 458-478). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, Inc. Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Bas ic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 49-71. Ryan, J. J. (2002). Work values and organizational citizenship behaviors: Values that work for employees and organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 123-132. Saboe, K., & Johnson, R. E. (2008). Implicit identi ties predict supervisor-rated work outcomes and relationships. Poster presented at the 23rd Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, San Francisco California. Schnake, M. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A r eview, proposed model, and research agenda. Human Relations, 44(7), 735-759. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content a nd structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental and social psychology, 25, 1-65. New York: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psyc hological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562. Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating t he structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230-255. Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex difference s in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6) 1010-1028. Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2005). Development of t he levels of self-concept scale: Measuring the individual, relational, and collective levels. Unpublished manuscript.

PAGE 148

133 Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R.C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology 81 219-227. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). O rganizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68 655–663. Snell, R. S., & Wong, Y. L. (2007). Differentiating good soldiers from good actors. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 883-909. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive be havior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537. Snyder, M. & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125-139. Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Spiegel, S., Grant-Pillow, H., & Higgins, E. T. (20 04). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 39-54. Sutton, M. J. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: a career devel opment strategy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of So uth Florida, Tampa, FL. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

PAGE 149

134 Tan, H. H., & Tan, M. L. (2008). Organizational cit izenship behavior and social loafing: the role of personality, motives, and contextual fa ctors. The Journal of Psychology, 142(1), 89-108. The StudyResponse Project. (2004a). The StudyRespon se project: An online social science research resource. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from http://istprojects.syr.edu/~studyresponse/ studyresp onse /index.htm The StudyResponse Project. (2004b). Researcher Info rmation. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from http://istprojects.syr.edu/~studyresponse/studyrespo nse/researcherinformation.ht m Turner, N. E. (1998). The effect of common variance and structure pattern on random data eigenvalues: Implications for the accuracy of parallel analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 541-568. Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Blo odgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performan ce of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29, 187-206. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995 ). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge ove r muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765-802

PAGE 150

135 Van Scotter, J.R., & Motowidlo, S.J., (1996). Inter personal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 525-531. Wagner, S. L., & Rush, M. C. (2000). Altruistic org anizational citizenship behavior: Context, disposition, and age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(3), 379-391. Walz, S.M., & Niehoff, B.P. (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on organizational effectiveness in limited-menu res taurants. Presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Cincinnati. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job sati sfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizens hip and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617. Williams, S. & Shiaw, W. T. (1999). Mood and organi zational citizenship behavior: the effects of positive affect on employee organization al citizenship behavior intentions. Journal of Psychology, 133(6), 656-668. Yuanlin, S. (under review). The egoistic and altruistic motivations of organiza tional citizenship behavior. Paper submitted to the 2007 annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia. Zellars, K. L., & Tepper, B. J. (2003). Beyond soci al exchange: New directions for organizational citizenship behavior theory and rese arch. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 395-424. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1982). Factors infl uencing four rules for determining the number of components to retain. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17(2), 253269.

PAGE 151

136 Appendices

PAGE 152

137 Appendix A: Focus Group Questionnaire “Working Above and Beyond” Focus Group The reason you are here today is because I’m intere sted in understanding why people participate in “Above and Beyond” behaviors. Throug hout our work lives, we may find ourselves going “above and beyond” what our prescri bed job roles require. Examples of such behaviors include… Staying late after work to finish a project Helping out coworkers by offering suggestions Taking advantage of training classes to further dev elop your skills Finding ways to improve the efficiency of the workf low within your organization Attending company sponsored events that are not man datory If you’ve ever participated in any of these above b ehaviors, I want to hear from you! The format of this focus group will be very informa l. Participation is voluntary and any information you provide today will remain confident ial and anonymous. ** If you feel more comfortable talking about a fri end or coworker’s work experience, please feel free to do so instead of talking about yourself.

PAGE 153

138 Appendix A Continued PART 1A: Read the following “Above and Beyond” behaviors bel ow: Helping others by offering suggestions Teaching others useful knowledge or skills Performing some of my coworkers’ tasks Providing emotional support for others’ personal pr oblems Cooperating with others by accepting suggestions Informing others of organizational events they shou ld know about Showing consideration and courtesy when dealing wit h my coworkers Motivating my work group Tell me AS MANY reasons for WHY you (or your cowork ers) would participate in any of these types of “Above and Beyond” behaviors. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

PAGE 154

139 Appendix A Continued PART 1B: Read the following “Above and Beyond” behaviors bel ow: Representing my organization positively and promoti ng it to outsiders Showing loyalty to my organization despite temporar y hardships (e.g., layoffs) Supporting my organization’s mission and objectives Following my organization’s rules and procedures Providing suggestions to improve my organization Tell me AS MANY reasons for WHY you (or your cowork ers) would participate in any of these types of “Above and Beyond” behaviors. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

PAGE 155

140 Appendix A Continued PART 1C: Read the following “Above and Beyond” behaviors bel ow: Persisting with extra effort in all work tasks even if there are obstacles Taking the initiative to do everything necessary to accomplish my work objectives even if it is not part of my job Finding additional productive work when there is do wntime Developing my skills and expertise by taking advant age of training (inside or outside my organization) Tell me AS MANY reasons for WHY you (or your cowork ers) would participate in any of these types of “Above and Beyond” behaviors. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

PAGE 156

141 Appendix A Continued Part 2: I want to know if you would participate in “Above a nd Beyond” behaviors for the following reasons. Tell me the extent you agree or disagree with the following reasons. I participate in “Above and Beyond” behaviors because… Strongly Disagree (This is a highly unlikely reason for me to participate in “Above and Beyond” behaviors.) Disagree Neutral (I neither agree nor disagree.) Agree Strongly Agree (This is a highly likely reason for me to participate in “Above and Beyond” behaviors.) 1) …I feel that I have more control and decision-making authority participating in these types of behaviors versus my actual job. 1 2 3 4 5 2) …I enjoy the challenge. 1 2 3 4 5 3) …it will lead to higher pay or a greater probability of a promotion. 1 2 3 4 5 4) …I know it will help me achieve my career goals. 1 2 3 4 5 5) …I want to look good to others (i.e., my coworkers, my boss). 1 2 3 4 5 6) …it is a way for me to influence others (e.g., coworkers, subordinates, supervisors, or customers). 1 2 3 4 5 7) …I can use it as a way to gain emotional support from my coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 8) …I feel guilty for past wrongdoings (e.g., I’ve been absent often for personal reasons so I decide to help plan the company picnic). 1 2 3 4 5 9) …I feel like I owe it to my organization (i.e., my organization treats me well so I feel like I should give back). 1 2 3 4 5 10) …I have a general concern for my organization’s success. 1 2 3 4 5 11) …I have a desire to help others. 1 2 3 4 5 12) …it is a way for me to make friends at work. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 157

142 Appendix B: Items Generated in Study 1 Achievement Because it helps me advance in my career. Because it helps me get ahead of others. Because I set high standards for myself.* Because I strive to be successful. Because I like to outdo others. Affiliation To feel accepted by the people I work with.* To build a social support system at work. Because it provides me with a sense of belonging to my workgroup. Autonomy Because it provides me with a sense of ownership ov er my work. Because it offers me an avenue to take charge of my career. Because performing these types of behaviors is at m y own discretion. To have more control over my work. Competence Because it provides me with an avenue to exercise m y skills and abilities. Because it helps me achieve goals I set for myself. Because it allows me to use my knowledge and expert ise. Because it helps me feel accomplished. Because it helps me feel good at my job. Felt Obligation Because I consider it part of my job. Because I owe it to my organization. Because it is the right thing to do. Because I feel a personal obligation to help my com pany achieve its goals. Because I have an obligation to my company to produ ce high quality work. Because I have an obligation to my company to perfo rm to the best of my ability.* Guilt Because I feel guilty for not working as hard at ti mes.* To make up for the times that I slacked off. Because I feel guilty since my coworkers are workin g harder than me. To make up for not pulling my weight. To make up for me either taking long breaks or bein g absent too often. Because I am not performing as well as others on my required job responsibilities. Indicates items assigned the motive dimension wit h 100 percent consensus.

PAGE 158

143 Appendix B Continued Impression Management To look good to others (e.g., my supervisor; my cow orkers).* To look busy.* To earn the respect of my supervisor and/or my cowo rkers. To look dependable to my supervisor and/or coworker s.* To avoid looking lazy.* Instrumental To increase my likelihood of getting a raise and/or promotion. In hopes that one day others will return the favor. For a good recommendation. To make more money. Intimacy To build positive relationships with my colleagues. To establish meaningful friendships with my colleag ues. To build trusting relationships. Because I care about the people I work with. To get to know my coworkers better. Organizational Concern To increase the profitability of the organization.* Because I like the organization that I work for. So my organization will be successful.* Because my organization is a reflection of who I am To give the organization a good reputation. Power In order for others to listen to my ideas. Because I like to take charge. Because I can talk others into doing things.* Because I am good at influencing others. Prosocial Values Because I genuinely like helping people.* Because I have empathy for those who need help.* Because I care about other's feelings. Because I believe in being polite to others. Because I feel it is important to help others. Indicates items assigned the motive dimension wit h 100 percent consensus.

PAGE 159

144 Appendix C: Demographics Questionnaire Gender: _____ Male _____ Female Age: _____ How many hours per week do you work in your current job(s)? _____ hours How long have you worked in your current job? _____ years _____ months Is your job: _____ managerial _____ non-managerial Mark with an “X” the group that best describes you: _____ Asian/Pacific Islander _____ American Indian/Alaskan Native _____ Black Non-Hispanic _____ White Non-Hispanic _____ Hispanic _____ Other Mark with an “X” the industry sector you work in: _____ Manufacturing _____ Government _____ Hospitality _____ Medical/Social Service _____ Retail _____ Entertainment _____ Communications _____ Service _____ Education _____ Financial Services _____ Technology _____ Military _____ Other (please specify) ______________________ _____

PAGE 160

145 Appendix D: Pilot Good Soldier Motive Scale MOCBI Subscale During the work day, we find ourselves going “above and beyond” what our job roles and responsibilities require. Some of these types of “ above and beyond” behaviors are directed towards your COWORKERS Examples of such behaviors include: Helping coworkers who have been absent Cooperating with your coworkers Helping new employees get acclimated Helping coworkers with their work Passing along helpful information to coworkers Providing support to a coworker with a problem We’re motivated to participate in these “above and beyond” behaviors for different reasons. For each reason listed below, answer the following question: How IMPORTANT is each reason to you when participat ing in these “above and beyond” behaviors toward your COWORKERS? I participate in these “ above and beyond” behaviors helpful to my COWORKERS … n r n n nnn n n 1. Because I am good at influencing others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Because I am not performing as well as others on my required job responsibilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Because I believe in being polite to others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Because I can talk others into doing things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Because I care about other's feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Because I care about the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Because I consider it part of my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Because I feel a personal obligation to help my company achieve its goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Because I feel guilty for not working as hard at times. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 161

146 Appendix D Continued 10. Because I feel guilty since my coworkers are working harder than me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. Because I feel it is important to help others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Because I genuinely like helping people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. Because I have an obligation to my company to perform to the best of my ability. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. Because I have an obligation to my company to produce high quality work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Because I have empathy for those who need help. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. Because I like the organization that I work for. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. Because I like to outdo others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. Because I like to take charge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. Because I owe it to my organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. Because I set high standards for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 21. Because I strive to be successful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 22. Because it allows me to use my knowledge and expertise. 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. Because it helps me achieve goals I set for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. Because it helps me advance in my career. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. Because it helps me feel accomplished. 1 2 3 4 5 6 26. Because it helps me feel good at my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 27. Because it helps me get ahead of others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 28. Because it is the right thing to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. Because it offers me an avenue to take charge of my career. 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. Because it provides me with a sense of belonging to my workgroup. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 162

147 Appendix D Continued 31. Because it provides me with a sense of ownership over my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 32. Because it provides me with an avenue to exercise my skills and abilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 33. Because my organization is a reflection of who I am. 1 2 3 4 5 6 34. Because performing these types of behaviors is at my own discretion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 35. For a good recommendation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 36. In hopes that one day others will return the favor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 37. In order for others to listen to my ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 38. So my organization will be successful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 39. To avoid looking lazy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 40. To build a social support system at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 41. To build positive relationships with my colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 42. To build trusting relationships. 1 2 3 4 5 6 43. To earn the respect of my supervisor and/or my coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 44. To establish meaningful friendships with my colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 45. To feel accepted by the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 46. To get to know my coworkers better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 47. To give the organization a good reputation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 48. To have more control over my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 49. To increase my likelihood of getting a raise and/or promotion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 50. To increase the profitability of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 51. To look busy. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 163

148 Appendix D Continued 52. To look dependable to my supervisor and/or coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 53. To look good to others (e.g., my supervisor; my coworkers). 1 2 3 4 5 6 54. To make more money. 1 2 3 4 5 6 55. To make up for me either taking long breaks or being absent too often. 1 2 3 4 5 6 56. To make up for not pulling my weight. 1 2 3 4 5 6 57. To make up for the times that I slacked off. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 164

149 Appendix D Continued MOCBO Subscale During the work day, we find ourselves going “above and beyond” what our job roles and responsibilities require. Some of these types of “ above and beyond” behaviors are helpful to the success of the ORGANIZATION Examples of such behaviors include: Following company rules and procedures even when no supervisor is present Not using company time for personal matters Giving advance notice when unable to come to work Dealing with minor inconveniences at work Only taking work breaks when necessary Consistently arriving to work on time We’re motivated to participate in these “above and beyond” behaviors for different reasons. For each reason listed below, answer the following question: How IMPORTANT is each reason to you when participat ing in these “above and beyond” behaviors toward your ORGANIZATION? I participate in these “ above and beyond” behaviors helpful to my ORGANIZATION … n r n n nnn n n 1. Because I am good at influencing others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Because I am not performing as well as others on my required job responsibilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Because I believe in being polite to others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Because I can talk others into doing things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Because I care about other's feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Because I care about the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Because I consider it part of my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Because I feel a personal obligation to help my company achieve its goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Because I feel guilty for not working as hard at times. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. Because I feel guilty since my coworkers are working harder than me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 165

150 Appendix D Continued 11. Because I feel it is important to help others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Because I genuinely like helping people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. Because I have an obligation to my company to perform to the best of my ability. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. Because I have an obligation to my company to produce high quality work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Because I have empathy for those who need help. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. Because I like the organization that I work for 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. Because I like to outdo others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. Because I like to take charge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. Because I owe it to my organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. Because I set high standards for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 21. Because I strive to be successful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 22. Because it allows me to use my knowledge and expertise. 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. Because it helps me achieve goals I set for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. Because it helps me advance in my career. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. Because it helps me feel accomplished. 1 2 3 4 5 6 26. Because it helps me feel good at my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 27. Because it helps me get ahead of others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 28. Because it is the right thing to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. Because it offers me an avenue to take charge of my career. 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. Because it provides me with a sense of belonging to my workgroup. 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. Because it provides me with a sense of ownership over my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 166

151 Appendix D Continued 32. Because it provides me with an avenue to exercise my skills and abilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 33. Because my organization is a reflection of who I am. 1 2 3 4 5 6 34. Because performing these types of behaviors is at my own discretion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 35. For a good recommendation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 36. In hopes that one day others will return the favor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 37. In order for others to listen to my ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 38. So my organization will be successful. 1 2 3 4 5 6 39. To avoid looking lazy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 40. To build a social support system at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 41. To build positive relationships with my colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 42. To build trusting relationships. 1 2 3 4 5 6 43. To earn the respect of my supervisor and/or my coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 44. To establish meaningful friendships with my colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 45. To feel accepted by the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 46. To get to know my coworkers better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 47. To give the organization a good reputation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 48. To have more control over my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 49. To increase my likelihood of getting a raise and/or promotion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 50. To increase the profitability of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 51. To look busy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 52. To look dependable to my supervisor and/or coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 167

152 Appendix D Continued 53. To look good to others (e.g., my supervisor; my coworkers). 1 2 3 4 5 6 54. To make more money. 1 2 3 4 5 6 55. To make up for me either taking long breaks or being absent too often. 1 2 3 4 5 6 56. To make up for not pulling my weight. 1 2 3 4 5 6 57. To make up for the times that I slacked off. 1 2 3 4 5 6

PAGE 168

153 Appendix E: Good Soldier Motives Scale (GSMS) Motives to Engage in OCBI (MOCBI Subscale) Prosocial Values 1. Because I care about other's feelings. 2. Because I feel it is important to help others. 3. Because I genuinely like helping people. 4. Because I believe in being polite to others. 5. Because I have empathy for those who need help. Intimacy 1. To build trusting relationships. 2. To establish meaningful friendships with my colleag ues. 3. To build a social support system at work. 4. To build positive relationships with my colleagues. 5. To get to know my coworkers better. Organizational Concern and Obligation 1. So my organization will be successful. 2. To increase the profitability of the organization. 3. Because I owe it to my organization. 4. Because I feel a personal obligation to help my com pany achieve its goals. 5. To give the organization a good reputation. Instrumental 1. To increase my likelihood of getting a raise and/or promotion. 2. To look good to others (e.g., my supervisor; my cow orkers). 3. To make more money. 4. To look dependable to my supervisor and/or coworker s. 5. For a good recommendation. Guilt 1. To make up for not pulling my weight. 2. To make up for the times I slacked off. 3. To make up for me either taking long breaks or bein g absent too often.

PAGE 169

154 Appendix E Continued Motives to Engage in OCBO (MOCBO Subscale) Prosocial Values 1. Because I care about other's feelings. 2. Because I feel it is important to help others. 3. Because I believe in being polite to others. 4. To build trusting relationships. 5. To build positive relationships with my colleagues. Guilt 1. To make up for the times I slacked off. 2. To make up for not pulling my weight. 3. To make up for me either taking long breaks or bein g absent too often. 4. Because I feel guilty for not working as hard at ti mes. 5. Because I feel guilty since my coworkers are workin g harder than me. Organizational Concern and Obligation 1. So my organization will be successful. 2. Because I feel a personal obligation to help my com pany achieve its goals. 3. Because I have an obligation to my company to produ ce high quality work. 4. Because I owe it to my organization. 5. To give the organization a good reputation. Achievement 1. Because it offers me an avenue to take charge of my career. 2. Because it helps me achieve goals I set for myself. 3. Because it helps me advance in my career. 4. Because it helps me feel accomplished. 5. Because I set high standards for myself. Instrumental 1. To increase my likelihood of getting of raise and/o r promotion. 2. To make more money. 3. For a good recommendation.

PAGE 170

155 Appendix F: Regulatory Focus Items (Johnson, Chang, & Rosen, 2007) Promotion Focus 1. My goal at work is to fulfill my potential to the f ullest in my job. 2. I am focused on successful experiences that occur w hile working. 3. In general, I tend to think about positive aspects of my work. 4. I see my job as a way for me to fulfill my hopes, w ishes, and aspirations. 5. I think about the positive outcomes that my job can bring me. 6. I feel happy when I have accomplished a lot of work Prevention Focus 1. I am focused on failure experiences that occur whil e working. 2. I am fearful about failing to prevent negative outc omes at work. 3. In general, I tend to think about negative aspects of my work. 4. I think about the negative outcomes associated with losing my job. 5. I feel anxious when I cannot meet my responsibiliti es at work. 6. I sometimes feel anxious at work.

PAGE 171

156 Appendix G: Self-concept Scale (Selenta & Lord, 2005) Individual level – comparative identity subscale 1. I thrive on opportunities to demonstrate that my ab ilities or talents are better than those of other people. 2. I have a strong need to know how I stand in compari son to my coworkers. 3. I often compete with my friends. 4. I feel best about myself when I perform better than others. 5. I often find myself pondering over the ways that I am better or worse off than other people around me. Relational level – concern for other subscale 1. If a friend was having a personal problem, I would help him/her even if it meant sacrificing my time or money. 2. I value friends who are caring, empathetic individu als. 3. It is important to me that I uphold my commitments to significant people in my life. 4. Caring deeply about another person such as a close friend or relative is important to me. 5. Knowing that a close other acknowledges and values the role that I play in their life makes me feel like a worthwhile person. Collective level – group achievement focus subscale 1. Making a lasting contribution to groups that I belo ng to, such as my work organization, is very important to me. 2. When I become involved in a group project, I do my best to ensure its success. 3. I feel great pride when my team or group does well, even if I’m not the main reason for its success. 4. I would be honored if I were chosen by an organizat ion or club that I belong to, to represent them at a conference or meeting. 5. When I’m part of a team, I am concerned about the g roup as a while instead of whether individual team members like me or whether I like them.

PAGE 172

157 Appendix H: Machiavellianism Scale (Kessler, Bandelli, Spector, Penny, Borman, & Nelso n, 2007) Manipulative Behaviors 1. Employees should be watched with an "eye of suspici on" because it is natural for people to desire to acquire power. 2. It is wise to keep friends close but enemies closer 3. Since most employees are ambitious, they will only do good deeds if it benefits them. 4. An effective individual should make him/herself fea red but not hated. 5. When seeking revenge, an individual should complete ly defeat a competitor to ensure no retaliation. 6. Since most people are weak, a rational individual s hould take advantage of the situation to maximize his/her own gains. 7. It is important to be a good actor, but also capabl e of concealing this talent. 8. Most employees are so nave that they will take inf ormation at face value. 9. The most effective means of getting people to behav e in an ethical fashion is by making them fearful of behaving otherwise. 10. When an individual does not have control over those that work for him/her, it is still critical to appear to have full control over them.

PAGE 173

158 Appendix I: Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1986) 1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other peo ple. R 2. At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like. R 3. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe. R 4. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have almost no information. 5. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain oth ers. 6. I would probably make a good actor. 7. In a group of people, I am rarely the center of att ention. 8. In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons. 9. I am not particularly good at making other people l ike me. R 10. I’m not always the person I appear to be. 11. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do thi ngs) in order to please someone or win their favor. R 12. I have considered being an entertainer. 13. I have never been good at games like charades or im provisational acting. R 14. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit differe nt people and different situations. R 15. At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going. R 16. I feel a bit awkward in company and do not show up quite as well as I should. R 17. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for a right end). 18. I may deceive people by being friendly when I reall y dislike them.

PAGE 174

159 Appendix J: Short Schwartz Value Survey (SSVS; Lindeman & Verkasalo, 2005) Rate the importance of the following values as a li fe-guiding principle for you: Use the following scale for rating each value using scale 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 where: 0= opposed to my principles 1= not important 4= important 8= of supreme importance 1. POWER (social power, authority, wealth) 2. ACHIEVEMENT (success, capability, ambition, influen ce on people and events) 3. HEDONISM (gratification of desires, enjoyment in li fe, self-indulgence) 4. STIMULATION (daring, a varied and challenging life, an exciting life) 5. SELF-DIRECTION (creativity, freedom, curiosity, ind ependence, choosing one's own goals) 6. UNIVERSALISM (broad-mindedness, beauty of nature an d arts, social justice, a world at peace, equality, wisdom, unity with nature environmental protection) 7. BENEVOLENCE (helpfulness, honesty, forgiveness, loy alty, responsibility) 8. TRADITION (respect for tradition, humbleness, accep ting one's portion in life, devotion, modesty) 9. CONFORMITY (obedience, honoring parents and elders, self-discipline, politeness) 10. SECURITY (national security, family security, socia l order, cleanliness, reciprocation of favors)

PAGE 175

160 Appendix K: Citizenship Motives Scale (Rioux & Penner, 2001) 1. Because I have a genuine interest in my work. (OC) 2. Because I feel it is important to help those in nee d. (PV) 3. So that others will think I pull my weight. (IM) 4. So that I don’t get laid off. (IM) 5. Because I want to be fully involved in the company. (OC) 6. So that others will like me. (IM) 7. So that others will see me as helpful. (IM) 8. Because I am concerned about other people’s feeling s. (PV) 9. Because I want to be a well-informed employee. (OC) 10. To have fun with my co-workers (PV) 11. To get a good raise. (IM) 12. In order to keep my job. (IM) 13. Because I care what happens to the company. (OC) 14. Because I like interacting with my co-workers. (PV) 15. So that others will think of me as supportive. (IM) 16. Because the organization values my work. (OC) 17. Because I want to help my co-workers in any way I c an. (PV) 18. Because I feel pride in the organization. (OC) 19. Because I can put myself in other people’s shoes. ( PV) 20. Because I want to understand how the organization w orks. (OC) 21. Because I believe in being courteous to others. (PV ) 22. So that others will think highly of me. (IM) 23. To keep up with the latest developments in the orga nization. (OC) 24. Because it is easy for me to be helpful. (PV) 25. To get a promotion. (IM) 26. Because I am committed to the company. (OC) 27. To get to know my co-workers better. (PV) 28. Because the organization treats me fairly. (OC) 29. To be friendly with others. (PV) 30. To make myself more marketable to other organizatio ns. (IM)

PAGE 176

161 Appendix L: Agreeableness Scale (Goldberg, 1999) 1. I have a good word for everyone. 2. I believe that others have good intentions. 3. I respect others. 4. I accept people as they are. 5. I make people feel at ease. 6. I have a sharp tongue. 7. I cut others to pieces. 8. I suspect hidden motives in others. 9. I get back at others. 10. I insult people.

PAGE 177

162 Appendix M: Conscientiousness Scale (Goldberg, 1999) 1. I am always prepared. 2. I pay attention to details. 3. I get chores done right away. 4. I like order. 5. I follow a schedule. 6. I am exacting in my work. 7. I leave my belongings around. 8. I make a mess of things. 9. I often forget to put things back in their proper p lace. 10. I shirk my duties.

PAGE 178

163 Appendix N: Organizational Commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997) Affective Commitment 1. I would be happy to spend the rest of my career wit h my current organization. 2. I really feel as if my organization’s problems are my own. 3. I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organ ization. (R) 4. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to my organiza tion. (R) 5. My organization has a great deal of personal meanin g for me. 6. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organizati on. Continuance Commitment 1. It would be very hard for me to leave my organizati on right now, even if I wanted to. 2. Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now. 3. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire. 4. I feel that I have too few options to consider leav ing my organization. 5. One of the few serious consequences of leaving my o rganization would be the scarcity of available alternatives. 6. One of the major reasons I continue to work for my organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice – ano ther organization may not match the overall benefits that I have here.

PAGE 179

164 Appendix O: Organizational Justice Scale (Colquitt, 2001) Distributive Justice 1. My pay reflects the effort I put into my work. 2. My pay is appropriate for the work I have completed 3. My pay reflects what I have contributed to my organ ization. 4. My pay is justified, given my performance. Procedural Justice 1. I have been able to express my feelings and views c oncerning decisions made by my organization. 2. I have had influence over the decisions arrived at by my organization. 3. Decisions at my organization have been consistent. 4. Decisions at my organization have been free of bias 5. Decisions at my organization have been based on acc urate information. 6. I have been able to appeal decisions made at my org anization. 7. Decisions at my organization have upheld ethical an d moral standards. Interpersonal Justice 1. My supervisor treats me in a polite manner. 2. My supervisor treats me with dignity. 3. My supervisor treats me with respect. 4. My supervisor refrains from making improper remarks and com.

PAGE 180

165 Appendix P: Survey of Perceived Organizational Supp ort (Eisenberger et al., 1986) 1. My organization really cares about my well-being. 2. My organization strongly considers my goals and val ues. 3. My organization shows concern for me. 4. My organization cares about my opinions. 5. My organization is willing to help me if I need a s pecial favor. 6. Help is available from my organization when I have a problem. 7. My organization would forgive an honest mistake on my part. 8. My organization would not take advantage of me, eve n if given the opportunity.

PAGE 181

166 Appendix Q: Job Satisfaction Scale (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979) 1. In general, I do not like my job. 2. All in all, I am satisfied with my job. 3. In general, I like working here.

PAGE 182

167 Appendix R: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Sca le Directions : Below are statements describing some “above and b eyond” work behaviors. You will be rating frequency and effectiveness of the behavi ors. It is important to note that the two are not the same. Rate each behavior using the following TW O response scales: How OFTEN does the participant perform this behavio r? 1 2 3 4 5 Never or almost never Rarely Sometimes Often Always or almost always How EFFECTIVE is the participant on this behavior? 1 2 3 4 5 NA Not at all effective Slightly effective Moderately effective Very effective Extremely effective Participant does not perform behavior Example of high frequency/low effectiveness : The individual is always willing to help a coworker but the help provided is often incorrect. Example of low frequency/high effectiveness : The individual rarely takes on extra challenging as signments, but when he/she does the project is completed to perfection. OCBI 1. Helps others who have been absent. (Williams & Ande rson, 1991) 2. Helps others who have heavy work loads. (Williams & Anderson, 1991) 3. Supports a co-worker with a personal problem. (Inte rpersonal Facilitation: Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) 4. Treats other fairly. (Interpersonal Facilitation: V an Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) 5. Goes out of way to help new employees. (Williams & Anderson, 1991) 6. Talks to other workers before taking actions that m ight affect them. (Interpersonal Facilitation: Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) 7. Praises co-workers when they are successful. (Inter personal Facilitation: Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) OCBO 1. Keeps abreast of changes in the organization. (Civi c Virtue: Podsakoff et al., 1990) 2. Persists in overcoming obstacles to complete a task (Job Dedication: Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) 3. Takes initiative to solve a work problem. (Job Dedi cation: Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) 4. Defends the organization if others criticize it. (L oyalty: Van Dyne et al., 1994) 5. Promotes the company’s products and/or services. (L oyalty: Van Dyne et al., 1994) 6. Pays close attention to important details. (Job Ded ication: Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) 7. Exercises personal discipline and self-control. (Jo b Dedication: Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996)

PAGE 183

About the Author Anna Lissa Tolentino was born and raised in Miami, Florida. She received her Bachelor of Science in Psychology from the Universi ty of Florida in 1999 and her Master of Arts in Industrial-Organizational Psychology fro m the University of North Carolina at Charlotte in 2002. Anna Tolentino began her doctora l program in the Fall of 2003 at the University of South Florida. Throughout her graduat e studies, she pursued multiple research interests in the areas of Organizational C itizenship Behavior, motivation, personality, and performance, and has presented at multiple conferences. Additionally, she has worked as both an internal and external con sultant for the private and public sector. Currently, Anna Tolentino is a Senior Consu ltant for Booz Allen Hamilton, a government contractor, specializing in Human Capita l consulting.