|USFDC Home | USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
OCBs Gone Bad: The Moderating Role s of Burnout and Role Overload by Kevin Loo A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology College of Arts and Science University of Sou th Florida Major Professor: Walter Borman, Ph.D. Paul Spector, Ph.D. Doug Rohrer, Ph.D. Date of Approval: October 11, 2010 Keywords: Citizenship Behaviors Contextual Performance, Work Psychology Task Performance, Health Psychology Copyright 20 10, Kevin Loo
i Table of Contents List of Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. ii List of Figures ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... iii Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... iv Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 17 Participant s and Procedure ................................ ................................ ................. 17 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 17 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 19 Burnout as a Moderator ................................ ................................ ...................... 21 Role Overload as a Moderator ................................ ................................ ............ 21 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 Impli cations and Future Research ................................ ................................ ....... 3 2 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3 3 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3 4 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 3 5 Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4 1 Appendix A: Target Survey ................................ ................................ ................ 4 2 Appendix B: Supervisor Survey ................................ ................................ ......... 4 4
ii List of Tables Table 1: Descriptive S tatistics and C orrelations ................................ ............................. 20 Table 2: Regressio n R esults for B urnout as the M oderator ................................ ............. 22 Table 3: Regression R esults for R ole O verload as the M oderator ................................ ... 23 Table 4: Regression R esults for T ask P erformance as the M oderator ............................. 3 0
iii List of Figure s Figure 1: Physical fatigue moderating the relationship between OCBP and turnover intentions ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 Figure 2: Physical fatigue moderating the relationship between OCBO and turnover intentions ................................ ................................ .......................... 24 Figure 3: Role overload moderating the relationship between OCBP and task performance ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 26 Figure 4: Role overload mode rating the relationship between OCBO and task performance ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 26 Figure 5: Task p erformance moderating the relationship between OCBP and role overload ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 3 1 Figure 6: Task p erformance moderating the relationship between OCBO and role overload ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 3 1
iv OCBs Gone Bad: The Moderating Roles of Burnout and Role Overload Kevin Loo Abstract Previous literature has typically assumed that organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are beneficial to both employee s and organization s Researchers have begun to question t his assumption This paper seeks to identify situations when OCBs are detrimental to employees or organizations. S pecifically, two variables ( burnout and role overload ) are hypothesized to moderate the relationship between OCB s and outcomes (job satisfac tion, turnover intentions, and task performance) such that when burnout and role overload are high, negative outcomes occur. Moderated regression was used to test the hypotheses. There was little evidence for burnout as a moderator, but interactions inv olving role overload were significant; however, the direction s of the relationships were not as hypothesized. Alternative hypotheses were tested, which provided support for the general theory that OCBs can result in negative outcomes.
1 Introduction O rganizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) ha ve been an important area of study in the industrial/organizational psychology literature One of the most widely accepted definition s of OCBs is the of the soc Organ, 1997 p. 91 ). Inherent in this definition is the positive connotation of OCBs: OCBs should be encouraged within an organization because they will result in positive support for task per formance. Much of the previous literature on OCBs has accepted this assumption without thoroughly questioning the true nature of OCBs. This study seeks to identify certain situations in which OCBs might be detrimental Past studies on OCBs have primarily focused on findi ng potential antecedents and consequences A meta analysis on OCBs ( Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach 2000 ) foun d that correlates included job satisfaction, organizational commitment, perceptions of fairness/justice, leader support iveness, role clarity, and lack of role conflict, whereas the consequences included in creased performance evaluations, organizational effectiveness and decreased turnover Most relevant to this paper are the relationships of OCBs to job satisfaction, tur nover, and task performance. A meta analytic review by Organ and Ryan (1995) found a positive relationship between job satisfaction and OCBs. More specifically, when they aggregated facets of
2 OCBs to form a composite OCB score they found an uncorrected c orrelation of .38 between the composite OCB score and job satisfaction. A possible explanation of this re lationship is described by Organ Podsakoff and MacKenzie (2006) and is framed with the social exchange theory (Adams, 1965; Blau, 1964; Rou sseau & Parks, 1993). According to this theory, if a job is satisfying to an employee, the employee will respond by increasing their input, which typically takes form as OCBs. Conversely, if a job is not satisfying to an employee, he/she will decrease input. Si nce decreasing task performance would be risky, the employee will most likely choose to decrease OCBs. In addition to satisfaction, past literature has also found that OCBs are negatively related to actual turnover (Chen, Hui & Sego, 1998 ; MacKenzie, Po dsakoff & Ahearne, 1998). According to Chen, Hui, and Sego (1998), a potential mechanism for this This would provide incentive for employees to stay with the organizati on and decrease OCBs. Alternatively, MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Ahearne, ( 1998 ) explain this negative relationship because OCBs positively affect the social structure of t he workplace, making the organization a more attractive workplace. More specifically, they explain that workers who perform OCBs are more likely to develop closer bonds with their co workers; these closer relationships should then decrease the amount of v oluntary turnover. They also explain that performance of OCBs should result in a closer relationship with their supervisors, and this too should decrease voluntary turnover. Finally, empirical research has examined the relationship between OCBs and task p erformance. Unfortunately, there is ambiguity in the literature as to whether or not
3 OCBs should be formally rewarded or considered during performance evaluations (Organ, 1997). Past findings reflect this ambiguity. While some studies have found very lo w correlations between OCBs and task performance (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Ahearne, 1998: r = .03; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991: r values ranging from .04 .16), other studies have found fairly high correlations (Barksdale, & Werner, 2001: r = .62; J ohnson, 2001: r values ranging from .42 .67; Williams, & Anderson, 1991: r = .52 and r = .55). An explanation of this disagreement could be due to some supervisors considering OCBs when making ratings of task performance, while others distinguish between task performance and OCBs/contextual performance. Organ, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006) offer several reasons why a supervisor may consider OCBs when evaluating task performance. Berman and Kenny (1976) and Bruner and Tagiuri (1954) suggest that if ther e is an implicit belief in the co occurrence of two behaviors, then raters may infer amount of one behavior from the other behavior. Organ et al. (2006) apply this implicit theory to good task performance and OCBs; raters may make assumptions about an emp Alternatively, according to Morrison (1994), Pond, Nacoste, Mohr, and Rodriguez (1997), and Lam, Hui, and Law (1999) some so s are formally required to complete. In either of these scenarios, if the rater takes into account OCBs when rating task performance, the two will be positively correlated. On the other hand, if the rater spec ifically distinguishes between task performance and OCBs/contextual performance, then one would not expect a strong relationship.
4 Although the past literature has focused primarily on the positive nature of OCBs, one must wonder if OCBs are always positi ve. A small subfield of research exists that theorize s negative connotation s of OCBs. Just as much of the previous literature focused on antecedents and consequences. V igoda Gadot ( 2006 ), Bolino, Turnley, Gilstrap, and Suazo (in press), and Becker theorize that OCBs can be the result of negative influences More specifically, Vigoda Gadot (2006) introduces the idea of CCBs r est o n three assumptions: employees s ometimes face strong social or managerial pressures to complete certain tasks outside of their formal job; employees for the most part comply with these pressu res and are not formally rewarded for their efforts; and the se employees would not have performed these tasks had these outside pressures not existed. This concept deals with the involuntary nature of the tasks does not explicitly state that they need to be voluntary, he does state that OCBs are less likely to b e enforced job task s This implies some choice for the employee. This is contrad ictory to the idea of CCBs, where to perform tasks outside of their formal job role. Furthermo re, Vigoda Gadot (2006) hypothesizes that CCBs are related to negative outcomes (job stress, organizational politics, intentions to leave, negligent behavior and burnout), while being negatively related to positive outcomes (innovation, job satisfaction, OCBs and formal performance). Although Vigoda Gadot does not empirically test these hypotheses, it expands the literature by providing theoretical arguments about the potential negative nature of OCBs.
5 Similar to Vigoda concept of CCBs B olino et al. (in press) theo rize a construct they call citizenship pressure. They specific job demand in which an employee feels al in press, p. 5 ). The authors theorize that citizenship pressure is an antecedent of OCBs, which is contrary to the positive nature associated with OCBs. This construct is differentiated from other similar constructs such as culture of citizenship (Chen, 2008) citizenship climate ( Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & E nsley, 2004) and OCB norms ( Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004) ; citizenship pressure is a subjective feeling an employee experiences, whereas the others are organizational characteristic s While related, culture of citizenship, citizenship climat e and OCB norms are thought to be antecedents of citizenship pressure. Employees in an organization with a culture, climate or norm of OCBs are more likely to feel citizenship pressure. T he authors empirically tested this construct and found that citizenship pressure i s associated with negative implications such as higher levels of work/family conflict. They reasoned that this conflict arose because spouses of those employees experiencing citizenship pressure would not to perform work that is not officially required or explicitly rewarded Furthermore, citizenship pressure was also associated with increased work/leisure conflict; employees ex periencing citizenship pressure would most likely feel the need to complete job related tasks when they are at home or on vacation. Finally, e mployees feeling citizenship pressure also reported higher levels of job stress and were more likely to leave the organization. The citizenship pressure most likely made the organization a le ss attractive place to work, which explains the increased turnover. Clearly, t hese findings contradict the positive nature of OCBs.
6 ) identify another potential ly negative antecedent of OCBs. They empirically link the personality trait of Machiavellianism to OCBs. Machiavellians (or Machs) are people who use impression management to manipulate others for their own personal benefit without regard to social norms. These Machs are not likely to engage in OCBs because of prosocial o r altruistic reasons; instead, they are motivated by personal gai n and will only perform OCBs if there is some perceived benefit. toward the individual rather than the organizat ion. The hypothesized reason for this is that OCBs directed toward the individual will gain attention and reciprocity (both of which are beneficial to the Mach), where as OCBs directed toward the organization are less noticeable and therefore less rewarded The authors further found that Machiavellianism is negatively re lated to organizational concern and prosocial values ( as rated by the employee, co workers and supervisors). These findings highlight another negative reason employees may engage in OCBs Just as there are potential negative antecedents to OCBs, some authors have theorized negative consequences of OCBs. These involve employees who engage in OCBs, but derive some negative consequence from the behaviors. Bergeron (2007) theorizes that in certain situation s there is a trade off between task performance and OCBs. In particular, because employees possess only limited resources on the job, engaging in OCBs may interfere with task performance result ing in decreased overall performance evalua tions and subsequent negative career outcomes (career advancement and rewards) More specifically, Bergeron hypothesizes that certain variables moderate whether or not OCBs will be costly to the individual. O rganization
7 type serves as one potential moder ator; organizations that reward employees based on specific outcome s or have very low role ambiguity should not show a positive relationship between OCBs and career outcomes. This negative relationship is theorized because time spent on OCBs means less ti me spent on outcomes that are rewarded or roles that are formally recognized by the organization, both of which lead to diminished career outcomes. Another potential moderator is the type of OCB: OCBs that are not visible or are especially time consuming a re hypothesized to have a negative relationship with career outcomes. Again, time spent on OCBs means less time spent on formal tasks, so if the OCBs are not recognized/rewarded or take too much time, this could lead to lower performance evaluations. Fin ally, individual level of OCBs is also a theorized moderator. Bergeron hypothesizes that if an individual consistently performs OCBs, others may Although t his author did not empirically test these hypotheses, it provides theoretical reasons for why OCBs may hav e negative consequences. Bolino, Turnl e y and Niehoff (2004) also provided theoretical rationale for potential negative aspect s of OCBs. More specifically, the authors questioned these three a ssumptions: OCBs stem from non self serving motives ; OCBs contribute to effectiveness; and OCBs make the organization a more attractive place to work The authors posit that these positive assumptions may not be true and provide examples that refute each assumption. Although some OCBs may be non self serving Bolino, Turnley and Niehoff performance evaluations violating the assumption that OCBs are a non self serving act Or even more deviously, OCBs can be used to make other workers look bad (either trying
8 to hurt a co unhelpful or simply making others look like they are not doing enough work) or to escape from formal task roles. When OCBs are performed instead of formal tasks, this also potentially decreases the effectiveness of the organization violating the assumption that OCBs increase effectiveness. Finally, the third assumption is that co workers want to work in an organization that fosters OCBs, but as the authors point out, this is not necessarily true. A workplace that encourages OCBs may have a less transparent performa nce appraisal system (increased role ambiguity), foster conflict among employees (unwanted help may make c ertain employees resentful), or simply demand too much work from its employees (escalating citizenship). Bolino and Turnley (2005) conducted an empirical study examining potential negative consequences of OCBs. More specifically, the authors studied the potential personal costs of engaging in a certain type of OCB individual initiative. Defined as related behaviors at a level that is so far beyond minimally required or generally expected levels that it takes on a voluntary flavor (Podsakoff et al. 2000 p. 524 ), the authors empirically test ed the relationships between individual initiative and negative outcomes such as role overload, job stress and work family conflict. The authors found that individual initiative was p ositively associated with all three negative outcomes. They explained these findings through a resource allocation model; OCBs require resources to complete, and these resources are taken from the job holder role (the formal job role) or the nonwork roles (spousal or family roles). If the resources c o me from the job holder role, the employee experience s role overload. If the resources c o me from nonwork roles, the employee experience s work
9 family conflict. Finally, regardless of where the resources c o me f rom, increased amounts of work i ncrease stress. As reviewed in this paper, t here has been a small subfield of theory and research questioning the positive aspects behaviors. Although these articles show potential negative antecedents and consequences, I doubt that any of the authors are implying that OCBs are fundamentally bad Instead, they are questioning the assumption that OCBs are always good ; OCBs may not originate from good intentions on beh alf of the employee and OCBs may not lead to positive benefits for the organization and employees. It is necessary to distinguish when OCBs are derived from good intentions rather than self serving intentions and when OCBs lead to positive benefits rather than negative consequences Unfortunately there is a noticeable lack of empirical work in this area. Although the theoretical articles are important to build a solid foundation, I believe more empirical work is needed In order to help differentiate wh en OCBs lead to negative versus positive outcomes I propose to test a model of OCBs, organizational outcomes (job satisfaction turnover intentions, and task performance) and moderators of these relationships. However, b efore discussing the moderators, one point must be discussed. Past literature has found a positive relationship between OCBs and job satisfaction, but it is typically conceptualized as job satisfaction predicting OCBs Although this directionality is plausible this paper takes an altern ative view and conceptualizes satisfaction as a consequence of OCBs. Borrowing from social psychology, schemas and cognitive consistency are two potential mechanisms for explaining job satisfaction as a consequence of OCBs. The first mechanism, a schema is
10 structure containing the attributes of a concept or type of stimulus and the relationships More specifically, the theory of schema triggered affect states that the relationships betw een attributes can trigger specific affects in an individual (Fiske, 1981; Fiske, 1982; Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986). Applied to OCBs and job satisfaction, these two variables are most likely cognitively linked together in a schema because past literature ha s supported the hypothesis that satisfied employees go beyond their work and help others and the organization. Due to this schema, we can hypothesize the opposite directionality of the relationship between OCBs and job satisfaction Performance of OCBs s hould trigger positive affect, thereby increasing An alternative approach to explaining job satisfaction as an outcome variable is the theory of cognitive consistency. According to Fiske (2004), an inconsistency may exist among or If an inconsistency occurs, the person will feel negative affect and will strive to remedy this inconsistency. One of the most widely known theories on consistency is the cognitive dissonance theo ry by Festinger (1957). In this theory, dissonance from an inconsistency 2004, p. 232). Applied to this paper, there may be dissonance in a dissatisfied worker who is performing OCBs, as OCBs are typically associated with high job satisfaction. In order for an employee to remedy this inconsistency, a dissatisfied worker who is performing OCBs may generate attitudes that increase their own level of job satisfaction F inally, a less altruistic mechanism could also explain how OCBs might affect job satisfaction. Although OCBs are less likely to be systematically rewarded compared to
11 task performance (Organ, 1997), employees most likely realize that OCBs are taken into a ccount on performance evaluations (Barksdale, & Werner, 2001 ; Johnson, 2001; Mackenzie, P odsakoff, & A hearne, 1998 ; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; Orr, Sackett, & Mercer, 1989). Thus, performing OCBs may make them feel as if they are performing the ir jobs well or will lead to rewards, which could lead to increased job satisfaction. Regardless of the mechanism, in these scenarios performance of OCBs is affecting job satisfaction, supporting it as an outcome variable. Moving back to the proposed mo del of OCBs, moderators, and outcome variables outcomes: burnout and role overload. Burnout as defined by Shirom and Melamed ( 2006 ) involves three dimensions: emotional ex haustion, physical fatigue and cognitive weariness. Emotional exhaustion is characterized by a depletion of emotional resources; physical fatigue is characterized by a depletion of physical energy; and cognitive weariness is characterized by an inability to perform mentally challenging tasks. Past literature has linked burnout to negative outcomes such as decreased job satisfaction (correlations range from .40 to .52) and increased turnover intentions (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001). I propose tha t the OCB job satisfaction relationship and the OCB I theorize that the specific facets of burnout will differentially moderate the two types of OCBs (OCB P vs. OCBO) OCBPs are behavio rs that directly benefit individuals in the organization; it encompasses behaviors such as helping others who have been absent, helping others with their work, and helping new employees get acclimated to their job. In each case, a specific individual is be ing helped and this specific individual
12 benefits from the OCBs. In contrast, OCBOs are behaviors that are directed towards the organization, and the organization as a whole is the beneficiary rather than a specific person. Examples of OCBOs include defendi ng the organization from criticism, showing pride for the organization, and protecting the organization from potential problems. As one can see, these tend to be more global in nature and are targeted towards the organization as opposed to an individual. I hypothesize that e motional exhaustion will moderate the relationship between OCBP s and outcome variables, but not the relationship between OCBO s and outcome variables Additionally, I hypothesize that physical fatigue will moderate the relationships bet ween both OCBP s and OCBO s and outcome variables Finally, I make no specific hypotheses regarding the moderating effect of cognitive weariness. Emotional exhaustion deals with and their ability to cope with coworkers and cu stome rs. Because this facet of burnout deals with a and OCB P s are behaviors targeted toward individuals, I hypothesize that emotional exhaustion will moderate the relationship s between OCBPs and job satisfaction and O CBP s and turnover intentions. If a worker feels that he/she has an abundance of emotional resources, I hypothesize that performance of OCB P s will actually increase job satisfaction (as described by the schema triggered affect theory, the cognitive consist ency theory, or the increased performance/reward theory) and decrease turnover intentions T his hypothesis is in agreeme nt with the positive nature of OCBs, and past literature has supported this view. In contrast, if a worker is emotionally depleted, I hypo thesize that performance of OCBP s will lead to negative outcomes. Because an emotionally exhausted person feels as if
13 he/she cannot emotionally invest, sympathize or be sensitive to others, performance of OCBP s that deal with helping others will most likely decrease their satisfaction This decrease in satisfaction is theorized because the worker feels as if he/she does not possess the resources required to perform these behaviors Furthermore, it may also increase their intentions to leave the orga nization because there appears to be an incompat ible fit of performance of OCBP s and lack of emotional resources; the worker may feel that another job or organization that does not emphasize OCBP s as much as their current organization would be a better fit Hypothesis 1: The relationship between OCBP s and job satisfaction is moderated by emotional exhaustion. The relationship is positive when emotional exhaustion is low, but negative when emotional exhaustion is high Hypothesis 2: The relationship between OCBP s and turnover intentions is moderated by emotional exhaustion. The relationship is positive when emotional exhaustion is high but negative when emotional exhaustion is low Physical fatigue is another facet of burnout, one characterized by a person physical energy. I hypothesize that physical fatigue will moderate the relationship s between both OCBP s and OCBO s and the outcome variables. If a person has low physical fatigue, I hypothesize that both OCBP s and OC BOs will increase satisfaction, decr ease turnover intentions and unrelated to task performance This last part of the hypothesis involving task performance is in line with the belief that ideally, task performance and OCBs/contextual performance should be kept completely distinct from one another However, when physical fatigue is high, performance of e ither OCBP s or OCBOs will lead to decrease d satisfaction increased turnover intentions and decreased
14 task performance Regardless of whether th e behaviors are directed toward a specific i ndividual or the organization, any type of increase in work/tasks for a physically fatigued employee will most likely have a detrimental effect Hypothesis 3a: The relationship between OCBP s and job satisfaction is moderated by physical fatigue. The relati onship is positive when physical fatigue is low, but negative when physical fatigue is high. Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between OCBOs and job satisfaction is moderated by physical fatigue. The relationship is positive when physical fatigue is low, bu t negative when physical fatigue is high Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between OCBP s and turnover intentions is moderated by physical fatigue. The relationship is negative when physical fatigue is low, but positive when physical fatigue is high. Hypot hesis 4b: The relationship between OCBOs and turnover intentions is moderated by physical fatigue. The relationship is negative when physical fatigue is low, but positive when physical fatigue is high. Hypothesis 5a: The relationship between OCBP s and tas k performance is moderated by physical fatigue. There will be no relationship when physical fatigue is low, but negative when physical fatigue is high. Hypothesis 5b: The relationship between OCBOs and task performance is moderated by physical fatigue. Th ere will be no relationship when physical fatigue is low, but negative when physical fatigue is high. In addition to burnout, I hypothesize that role overload will moderate the relationship between OCBs and the outcome variables. According to Welbourne,
15 Johnson and Erez (1998), individuals at work have two different role s, the job holder role (formal duties and responsibilities) and the organizational member role (expe ctation that employees will be good organizational citizen s ). Performance of OCBs fall s into the organizational member role. Role overload occurs when a person is expected to fulfill multiple rol es that require different behaviors, but is unable to fulfill these various roles due to a lack of resources time or other constraints ( Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Rizzo House, & Lirtzman, 1970 ). Therefore, if a person is not able to simultaneously fulfill both their job holder role and organizational member role, he/she will experience role overload. I hypothesize that if a person does not experie nce role overload, then performing OCBP s/OCBOs will lead to an increase in satisfaction a decrease in turnover intentions and no relationship with task performance These relationships are supported by past literature and are consistent with the positive nature of OCBs. On the other hand, if a person is experiencing role overload, performance of OCBs will most likely lead to negative outcomes for the employee. OCBs will most likely have a negative effect on general affect leading to decreased job satisfaction I n addition the worker may seek other jobs or organizations that they perceive as having less role overload, which would increase intentions to quit. Finally, because there are limited resources, devoting more resources to OCBs would decrease the resources available for task performance. This would decrease task performance I hypothesize that a person with high role overload will be negatively affected by this increase in demands regardless of w hether th e behaviors are targeted toward ind ividual s or the organization.
16 Hypothesis 6 a : The relationship between OCBP s and job satisfaction is moderated by role overload. The relationship is positive when role overload is low, but negative when role overl oad is high. Hypothesis 6 b: The relationship between OCBOs and job satisfaction is moderated by role overload. The relationship is positive when role overload is low, but negative when role overload is high. Hypothesis 7 a : The relationship between OCBP s and turnover intentions is moderated by role overload. The relationship is negative when role overload is low, but positive when role overload is high. See Figure 11. Hypothesis 7 b: The relationship between OCBOs and turnover intentions is moderated by rol e overload. The relationship is negative when role overload is low, but positive when role overload is high. See Figure 12. Hypothesis 8 a: The relationship between OCBP s and task performance is moderated by role overload. There will be no relationship when role overload is low, but negative when role overload is high. See Figure 13. Hypothesis 8 b : The relationship between OCB O s and task performance is moderated by role overload. There will be no relationship when role overload is low, but negative when role overload is high. See Figure 14.
17 Method Participants and Procedure Survey data were collected from 227 (75% female) employed participants enrolled in a psychology course at a university in the Southeast U.S. Participants came into the lab and comp leted a self report survey. Once completed, they received another survey with a pre paid envelope for their supervisor to fill out and return; 112 supervisor surveys were returned to the researchers Average age of the participants was 22.42 years ( SD = 3.93), and 57 % were Caucasian, 1 7 % African American, and 1 7 % Hispanic. Average tenure was 26.03 months ( SD = 23.65 ), they worked an average of 28.69 hours per week ( SD = 8.90 ), and they were employed predominantly in retail/service (5 6 %). Measures Cit izenship behavior was measured using 42 items from an OCB checklist ( Fox, Helped co worker with personal matter such as moving, childcare, car problems, etc = .84 ) and OCBO (organizational OCB: Said good things about your employer in front of others = .85 ). Employees responded to this measure on a five point Likert type scale with anchors 1 = Never and 5 = Everyday. (Shiro m, Nirel, & Vinokur, 2006). Two subscales of this measure were used for this
18 study : emotionally in coworkers and customers; = .91) and feel ph = .91) Participants responded to this measure by indicating how often, in the past 30 workdays, they have felt the feelings from each of the items. It was measured on a Likert type scale with anchors 1 = Never or almost never and 7 = Always or almost always. at = .82 ). Participants responded to this measure on a fi ve point Likert type scale with anchors 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Job satisfaction was measured using 3 items from Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, 1979) Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale All in all I am satisfied with my job ; = .92) Participants respond ed to this measure on a seven point Likert type scale with anchors 1 = Disagree and 7 = Agree. Turnover intentions was measured using 6 items derived from Mobley, Horner, and Hollin ; = .85 ). Participants respond ed to this measure on a five point Likert type scale with anchors 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree Task performance was measured using 7 items from William and (1991) in = .82 ). Supervisors responded to this measure on a five point Likert type sc ale with anchors 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree.
19 Results Intercorrelations and descriptive statistics for all study variables are listed in Table 1. Before discussing hypothesis testing, a few points should be noted about the correlation table. Firstly, there appear to be differential relationships for OCBP and OCBO. OCBPs seem to be positively related to physical fatigue, whereas OCBOs are not. OCBOs are significantly related to increased role overload and decreased turnover intention s, whereas OCBPs are not. This suggests that OCBOs may be more important in some ways. Additionally, it appears that OCBs are unrelated to task performance, which is in line with the original framework that OCBs and task performance should kept conceptua lly distinct. To test the h ypotheses that the relationship s between OCBs and outcome variables are moderated by burnout and role overload, moderated regression was used. A series of moderated regressions, as outline d by Baron and Kenny (1986), were run for each of the hypotheses. For example, in order to test if emotional exhaustion moderated the relationship between OCBP s and job satisfaction, hierarchical regression was conducted: in step one, job satisfaction was regressed onto the predictor variable ( OCBP ) and the moderator variable (emotional exhaustion), and in step two, job satisfaction was regressed onto the predictor, moderator, and the interaction term, or the cross product between the predictor and the moderator.
20 Table 1 Descriptiv e S tatistics and Co rrelations
21 Burnout as a Moderator There appear ed to be little support of the various facets of burnout as moderator s between OCBs and outcome variables (hypotheses 1 5). As shown in Table 2 none of the interaction terms for hypot heses 1 5 were statistically sign ificant at the .05 level However, two of the interaction terms approached significance. The interaction s between OCBP and physical fatigue and OCBO and physical fatigue in predicting turnover intention s were close to sig nifica nce ( = .6 3 p = .08 and = .46, p = .13, respectively). These two interactions are graphed in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Simple slope analyses were conducted to determine if the slope of the lines were significantly different from zero. When phys ical fatigue was low, OCBs were negatively related to turnover intentions ( OCBP: = .45, t (223) = 2.81, p < .01; OCBO: = .52 t (223) = 3.89, p < .01), but when physical fatigue was high, there is no relationship ( OCBP: = 0 5, t (223) = .34, p = .74; OCBO: = .23 t ( 223) = 1.53, p = .13). Role Overload as a Moderator The re was mixed support for role overl oad moderating the relationship between OCBs and outcome variables (hypotheses 6 8; Table 3) Hypotheses 6 and 7 theorized that role overload would moderate the relationship between OCBs and job satisfaction and OCBs and turnover intentions; none of these interaction terms were significant. However, the interaction terms for hypothes es 8a and 8b were significant ; OCBP and OCBO appear ed of subordina te task performance OCBP accounted for an additional 5% of variance in task performance, after controlling for the main effects of OCBP and role overload, = 1.28, p = .02 Similarly, the interaction
22 Table 2 Regression R esults for B urnout as the M oderator
23 Table 3 Regression R esults for R ole O verload as the M oderator
24 Figure 1 Physical fatigue moderating the relationship between OCBP and turnover intentions Figure 2 Physical fatigue moderating the relationship between OCBO and turnover intentions
25 performance, after controlling for the main effects of OCBO and role overload, = 1.19, p = .02. These two interactions are graphe d in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Simple slope analyses were conducted to determine if the slope of the lines were significantly different from zero. Interestingly, although the interaction term was significant, the two lines for OCBP predicting task performance at high role overload and low role overload were not significantly different from zero (high role overload: = .41 t (108) = 1.80, p = .08; low role overload: = .27 t (108) = 1.37, p = .17). However, one must keep in mind that slope analyses were conducted arbitrarily, at +/ one standard deviation on the moderator ; as such, the general pa ttern that when role overload was high, OCB P s appear ed to be positively relate d to task performance should be recognized. In regards to OCBO, when role overload was high, OCBOs were positively related to task performance ( = .59 t (108) = 2.92, p < .01), and when role overload was low, OCBOs were not related to task performance ( = .01 t (108) = .05, p = .96).
26 Figure 3 Role overload moderating the relationship between OCBP and task per formance Figure 4 Role overload moderating the relationship between OCBO and task performance
27 Discussion It was hypothesized that burnout and role overload would moderate the relationship between OCBs and various outco me variables. Unfortunately, there was little support for burnout as a moderator : none of the eight interaction terms with burnout as the moderator were significant although two approached significance Role overload as a moderator received mix ed suppor t, as two out of six interaction terms with role overload were significant The two burnout hypotheses (4a and 4b) that approached significance dealt with physical fatigue moderating the relationship between OCBP /OCBO and turnover intentions. It was hypot hesized that when physical fatigue is low, there would be a negative relationship, and when physical fatigue is high, there would be a positive relationship. As one can see from Figure 1 and Figure 2, the data are not exactly in line with the original hyp othese s. W hen physical fatigue w as low, performance of OCBs was positive for the organization because it was related to decreased turnover intentions. This is in line with the previous literature. However, when physical fatigue was high, rather than OCB s being related to higher turnover intentions, the benefit s of OCBs were simply eliminated. Although the interaction term s were not significant, the graphical representations do seem to support the general hypothesis that it is not always beneficial to en courage performance of OCBs.
28 The two role overload hypotheses (8a and 8b) that were significant dealt with role overload moderating the relationship between OCBP /OCBO and supervisor ratings of subordinate task performance. It was hypothesized that when ro le overload is low, there would be no relationship between OCBs and task performance, but when role overload is high, there would be a negative relationship. However, the graphical representation s (Figure s 3 and 4) do not support the original hypotheses. According to Figure 3 and Figure 4 the overall pattern seemed to suggest that when role overload was high, there was a positive relationship be tween OC B s and task performance. In other words, when a person was high on role overload, increased OCB s were r elated to high er task performance. This pattern with role overload as a moderator seem s counter intuitive because if a person is experiencing high role overload and does not have enough resources to fulfill the multiple roles expected of him/her, performa nce of OCBs should lead to decreased task performance, not increased task performance. engaging in OCBs when the employee clearly has too man y roles to fulfill. In other words, the supervisor sees an employee struggling to fulfill both their job holder role and organizational member role, and because he/she is still performing OCBs in the face of a large workload, the supervisor rates the empl oyee as high on job performance. However, such an explanation taps into halo and schema errors, which should have been avoided as the performance measure was specifically focused on task performance and the OCB measure was a frequency based behavioral mea sure. The specific behaviors on the OCB measure should help distinguish it from a task performance measure.
29 Another possible explanation of the results is simply that the hypothe ses were incorrect. The original hypothes es dealt with role overload as a moderator, without making an explicit connection between OCBs and role overload. However, Bolino and OCBs lead s to personal costs, such as role overload and job stress. Perhaps instead of role overload moderating the relationship between OCBs and task performance, there is an interaction between OCBs and task performance in predicting role overload. According to the past literature, this hypothesis also seems plausible A s stated previously in the introduction, role overload occurs because a person is not able to simultaneously fulfill their job holder role and their organizational member role. Based off of this, role overload should occur when OCBs and task performan ce are simultaneously high, but not when only one or the other is high. These revised hypotheses where task performance moderates the relationship between OCBs and role overload, were tested and the results of the regressions are reported in Table 4 B oth of the interaction terms were significant ( OCBP x task performance: = 2.67, p < .01; OCBO x task performance: = 2.81, p < .01). The data are graphed in Figures 5 and 6 As shown in the figures, the patterns support the hypotheses; when task perfo rmance and OCBs were high, role overload was high, but when either task performance or OCBs alone were high, role overload was lower. Additional simple slope analyses confirm ed these results: when task performance was high, there was a positive relationsh ip between OCBs and role overload ( OCBP : = 1.21 t (108) = 3.90, p < .01; OCBO: = 1. 20 t (108) = 4.21, p < .0 1), but when task performance was low, there was no relationship between OCBs and role overload
30 Table 4 Regression Results for Task P erform ance as the M oderator
31 Figure 5. Task p erformance moderating the relationship between OCBP and role overload Figure 6. Task p erformance moderating the relationship between OCBO and role overload
32 ( OCBP : = .10 t (108) = .35, p = .73; OCBO: = .04 t (108) = .13 p = 90 ) Taken together, the results support the hypothesis that a person attempting to simultaneously fulfill both roles of job holder and organizational citizen may be taking on too many responsibilities, and therefore experience the personal cost of role overload when performing OCBs. This provides support for the general theory that under certain circumstances, OCBs may be detrimental Implications and Future Research Due to increased g lobal competition, team based organizations, downsizing, and customer service/satisfaction emphasis, the focus on OCBs has been rising ( Borman, 2004; Borman, & Motowidlo, 1997; Borman, & Penner, 2001), and organizations appear to be increasing pressure for employees to engage in OCBs ( Bolino et al., in press ; Vigoda Gadot, 2006). OCBs have often been related to positive organizational outcomes, but results from this study show that there are pot ential hazards of continuing this trend Under certain circumstances, benefits derived from OCBs may be attenuated or even more importantly, performance of OCBs may even result in personal costs to employee s For instance, if employees comply with this pressure to perform OCBs, our results suggest that this will lead to stress on the jo b, in the form of role overload; e ven more seriously, it is the employees who are doing their tasks well who experience this increase in role overload. This has negative implications for the employees as role overload has been linked to negative outcomes such as decreased job satisfaction and decreased psychological health (Pearson, 2008). This in itself is a employees that are suffering the most by performing the OC Bs. In addition to this, there
33 are most likely negative ramificatio ns for the organization as well, such as increased turnover intentions. The next logical step would be to research the more distal effects of th is interaction between OCBs and task performance. For example, results show that simultaneous performance of task performance and OCBs lead s to role overload, which in turn is related to job dissatisfaction and decrease d psychological health; future resea rch should examine if this interaction also leads to negative physical health and decreases in other affective feelings toward the organization such as commitment or job involvement. Similarly, organizational outcomes, such as turnover and CWBs, should b e studied as distal outcome s of the interaction between OCBs and task performance. Another direction for future research is to test various moderators of the relationship between OCBs and dependent variables. For example, future research could focus on t he potential moderators of workload, role ambiguity, or role conflict. Limitations One potential limitation of this study is the use of a student sample, which may no t generalize to the population of employed adults. However, the results are still impo rtant as the sample represent s a significant portion of the adult workforce. Future research can seek to replicate the findings with other work sample s Another limitation could be the small sample size. Although there were 227 completed self report sur veys, there were only 112 completed pairs of self report and supervisor surveys. However, the fact that the only two interaction terms that were significant relied on the supervisor data, and hence a sampl e of 112, provides support that 112 is a large eno ugh sample to detect the effects of the interaction.
34 Conclusion In the past, the literature has typically assumed that OCBs are good. However, the results of this study show that this assumption may not be valid. In fact, the results support the idea that under certain circumstances, performance of OC Bs may actually be bad. In light of this evidence, the field as a whole should investigate under what circumstances OCBs are good for employees and organizations, and when OCBs are bad for employees and o rganizations.
35 References Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology. New York: Academic Press. Barksdale, K., & Werner, J.M. (2001). Managerial ratings of in role behaviors, organization al citizenship behaviors, and overall performance: Testing different models of their relationship. Journal of Business Research, 51, 145 155. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: C onceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173 1182. citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Resear ch, 35 (3), 246 267. Bergeron, D.M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32 (4), 1078 1095. Berman, J.S., & Kenny, D.A. (1976). Correlational bias in observer ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 263 273. Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
36 Bolino, M.C., & Turnley, W.H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiat ive and role overload, job stress, and work family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (4), 740 748. Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., Gilstrap, J.B., & Suazo, M.M. (in press). Citizenship under Journal of Organiz ational behavior. Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., & Niehoff, B.P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about the organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 229 246. Borman, W.C. (2004). The co ncept of organizational citizenship. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 (6), 238 241. Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99 1 09. Borman, W.C., & Penner, L.A. (2001). Citizenship performance: Its nature, antecedents, and motives. In B.W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (p. 45 61) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bruner, J.S., & Tagiuri, R. (1954). The perception of people. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire, Unpublished m anuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
37 Chen, H. (2008). Hypothetical and theoretical system framework of cultivation of organizational citizenship behavior and validation. International Journal of Business and Management, 3, 56 60. Chen, X.P., Hui, C., & Sego, D.J. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 922 931. Ehrhart, M.G., & Naumann, S.E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 960 974. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Fiske, S.T. (1981). Social cognition and affect. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition social behavior, and the environment. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Fiske, S.T. (1982). Schema triggered affect: Applications to social perception. In M. Clark and S.T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognitions: The 17th annual Carnegie symposium on cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fiske, S.T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fiske, S.T., & Pavelchak, M. (1986). Category based versus piecemeal based affective responses: Developme nts in schema triggered affect. In R.M. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgens (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior. New York: Guilford. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Bruursema, K., Kessler, S., & Goh, A. (2007, August). Necessity is the mother of behavior: Organizational constraints, CWB and OCB. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA.
38 Johnson, J.W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (5), 984 996. Lam, S.S., Hui, C., & Law, K.S. (1999). Organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (4), 594 601. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some possible antecedents and consequences of in role and extra role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62, 87 98. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff P.M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123 150. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & L eiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of Psychology, 52 397 422. Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology 63, 493 522. Morrison, E.W. (1 994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The Academy of Management Journal, 37 (6), 1543 1567.
39 Mowday, R. T., Koberg, C. S., & McArthur, A. W. (1984). The psychology of withdrawal process: a c ross validational test of Mobley's intermediate linkages model of turnover in two samples. Academy of Management Journal 27, 79 94. up time. Human Performance, 10 85 97. Organ, D ., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Organ, D., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional p redictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775 802. Orr, J.M., Sackett, P.R., & Mercer, M. (1989). The role of prescribed and nonprescribed behaviors in estimating the dollar value of performance. Journal of Applied Psychol ogy, 74 (1), 34 40. Pearson, Q.M. (2008). Role overload, job satisfaction, leisure satisfaction, and psychological health among employed women. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 57 63. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 513 563. Pond, S.B., Nacoste, R.W., Mohr, M.F., & Rodriguez, C.M. (1997). The me asurement of organizational citizenship behavior: Are we assuming too much? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27 (17), 1527 1544.
40 Rousseau, D.M., & Parks, J.M. (1993). The contractsof individuals and organizations. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), R esearch in organizational behavior. Greenwitch, CT: JAI Press. Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., & Lirtzman, S.I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (2), 150 163. Shirom, A., & Melamed, S. (2006). A co mparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures in two groups of professionals. International Journal of Stress Management, 13 (2), 176 200. Shirom, A., Nirel, N., & Vinokur, A.D. (2006). Overload, autonomy, and burnout as predictors of physician Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11 (4), 328 342. Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M.D. (2004). Moderators of the ues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455 465. Vigoda Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 36 (1), 77 93. Welbourne, T.M., J ohnson, D.E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540 555. Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictor s of organizational citizenship and in role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17 (3), 6 01 61
42 Appendix A: Target Survey OCB 1. Helped co worker with personal matter such as moving, childcare, car problems, etc 2. Picked up meal for others at work 3. P icked up or dropped off co worker at airport, hotel, restaurant, etc 4. Drove, escorted, or entertained company guests, clients, or out of town employees 5. T ook time to advise, coach, or mentor a co worker 6. Helped co worker learn new skills or shared job knowled ge 7. Covered a co 8. Helped new employees get oriented to the job 9. Lent a compassionate ear when someone had a work problem 10. Bought Girl Scout cookies or other fund raising items from a co worker (or their child) 11. Used own vehicle, supplies or equ 12. Lent a compassionate ear when someone had a personal problem 13. Lent money to a co worker 14. Contributed and/or sent cards/flowers for co worker birthdays/special occasions 15. Lent car or other personal property to co worker 16. Changed v acation schedule, work days, or shifts to accommodate co 17. Offered suggestions to improve how work is done 18. Offered suggestions for improving the work environment 19. Finished something for co worker who had to leave early 20. Helped a less capable co worker lift a heavy box or other object 21. Came in early or stayed late without pay to complete a project or task 22. Helped a co worker who had too much to do 23. Volunteered for extra work assignments 24. Took phone messages for absent or busy co worker 25. Tried to recrui t a person to work for your employer 26. Worked weekends or other days off to complete a project or task 27. Informed manager of co worker's excellent performance 28. Brought work home to prepare for next day 29. Volunteered to attend meetings or work on committees on own time 30. Developed extracurricular activities for co workers (sport team, etc.) 31. Said good things about your employer in front of others 32. Gave up meal and other breaks to complete work 33. Brought candy, doughnuts, snacks, or drinks for co workers 34. Organized office celebrations for holidays and co workers' birthdays, retirement, etc 35. Volunteered to work at after hours or out of town events 36. Volunteered to help a co worker deal with a difficult customer, vendor, or co worker 37. Gave a written or verbal recommendation for a co worker 38. Went out of the way to give co worker encouragement or express appreciation 39. Decorated, straightened up, or otherwise beautified common work space 40. Spent extra time helping a co worker prepare/edit/rehearse a presentation or paper 41. Assisted a co wo rker with device or equipment such as computers, copy machines, etc
43 42. Defended a co worker who was being "put down" or spoken ill of by other co workers or supervisor Job Satisfaction 1. All in all I am satisfied with my job 2. 3. In general, I like working here Burnout 4. I feel tired 5. I have no energy for going to work in the morning 6. I feel physically drained 7. I feel fed up 8. 9. I feel burned out 10. My thinking process is slow 11. I have difficulty conce ntrating 12. I feel I'm not thinking clearly 13. I feel I'm not focused in my thinking 14. I have difficulty thinking about complex things 15. I feel I am unable to be sensitive to the needs of coworkers and customers 16. I feel I am not capable of investing emotionally in coworkers and customers 17. I feel I am not capable of being sympathetic to co workers and customers Role Overload 18. The amount of work I am expected to do is too great 19. I never seem to have enough time to get everything done at work 20. It often seems like I have t oo much work for one person to do Turnover Intentions 21. I constantly think about quitting 22. All things considered, I would like to find a comparable job in a different organization 23. I will probably look for a new job in the near future 24. I will probably find an acceptable alternative if I look for a new job 25. I am unlikely to leave my job soon. 26.
44 Appendix B: Supervisor Survey Task Performance 1. Adequately completes assigned duties 2. Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description 3. Performs tasks that are expected of him/her 4. Meets formal performance requirements of the job 5. Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation 6. Neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform 7. Fails to perform essential duties
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2010 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004758
Ocbs gone bad :
b the moderating roles of burnout and role overload
h [electronic resource] /
by Kevin Loo.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.
Thesis (MA)--University of South Florida, 2010.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
ABSTRACT: Previous literature has typically assumed that organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are beneficial to both employees and organizations. Researchers have begun to question this assumption. This paper seeks to identify situations when OCBs are detrimental to employees or organizations. Specifically, two variables (burnout and role overload) are hypothesized to moderate the relationship between OCBs and outcomes (job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and task performance), such that when burnout and role overload are high, negative outcomes occur. Moderated regression was used to test the hypotheses. There was little evidence for burnout as a moderator, but interactions involving role overload were significant; however, the directions of the relationships were not as hypothesized. Alternative hypotheses were tested, which provided support for the general theory that OCBs can result in negative outcomes.
Advisor: Walter C. Borman, Ph.D.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.