A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior

Transcription

1 Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 2005, Vol. 90, No. 6, /05/$12.00 DOI: / A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior Reeshad S. Dalal Purdue University Job performance is increasingly being seen to encompass constructs such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). To clarify the OCB CWB relationship, a meta-analysis was conducted. Results indicate a modest negative relationship ( 0.32). The relationship strength did not increase appreciably when the target of the behavior (the organization vs. other employees) was the same. Moreover, OCB and CWB exhibited somewhat distinct patterns of relationships with antecedents. The OCB CWB relationship was moderated by the source of the ratings, the presence of antithetical items, and the type of response options. An employee-centric perspective is proposed whereby both OCB and CWB are perceived as adaptive behavior. Implications for organizations are discussed. Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior, meta-analysis, deviant behavior, job performance This research was funded by the Center for Human Resources Management, University of Illinois; the Seymour Sudman Dissertation Award from the Survey Research Laboratory, University of Illinois; and the Field Research Fund of the Industrial/Organizational Psychology Division, University of Illinois. This article is based on a portion of Reeshad S. Dalal s doctoral dissertation at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Some of the analyses were also presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Illinois, April I thank Tatana Olson for helping to code the primary studies. Charles Hulin and Carra Sims very kindly commented on drafts of this article. I am also grateful to Marcus Credé, Michael Bashshur, and the many other researchers who willingly shared their theses and unpublished data. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Reeshad S. Dalal, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN rsdalal@psych.purdue.edu Job performance is so important to industrial organizational (I/O) psychology that it is often simply referred to as the criterion. The traditional view restricts the performance space to what Borman and Motowidlo (1997) call task performance that is, the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activities that contribute to the organization s technical core (p. 99). Although it has long been recognized that job performance is multidimensional (Austin & Villanova, 1992; Schmidt & Kaplan, 1971), only more recently has the research literature (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; Campbell, 1990; Organ & Paine, 1999) acknowledged the role of employee work behaviors that fall outside the rubric of task performance. Borman and Motowidlo (1997) have reasoned that such behaviors are important because they shape the organizational, social, and psychological context that serves as the catalyst for task activities and processes (p. 100). Some researchers (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000) have suggested that there are three broad performance domains: task performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). There has been much interest in the relationship between the latter two domains (Bennett & Robinson, 2002; Bennett & Stamper, 2001; Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Fisher & Locke, 1992; Fox, Spector, Goh, & Bruursema, 2003; Hunt, 1996; Jermier, Knights, & Nord, 1994; Kelloway, Loughlin, Barling, & Nault, 2002; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Organ & Paine, 1999; Puffer, 1987; Sackett & DeVore, 2001; Sackett, Berry, Wiemann, & Laczo, 2005; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Spector & Fox, 2002). A priori, however, empirical findings on the OCB CWB relationship do not present a united picture. Some studies (e.g., Bennett & Stamper, 2001; Sackett & DeVore, 2001) have indicated strong OCB CWB relationships, whereas others (e.g., Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Kelloway et al., 2002; Sackett et al., 2005) have found weaker relationships. The present research uses meta-analysis to (a) estimate the strength of the relationship between OCB and CWB (at both the global and facet levels), (b) estimate these constructs relationships with a common set of antecedents, and (c) determine whether the magnitude of the OCB CWB relationship is moderated by other variables. Several lines of theory and empirical research are presented, some of which argue for a strong negative OCB CWB relationship and others for a weaker relationship. Construct Definitions Inspired by some of the classic early research in I/O psychology (e.g., Barnard, 1938; Katz & Kahn, 1966), OCB was originally defined as intentional employee behavior that is discretionary and typically not recognized or rewarded but that nonetheless improves the functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988; Schnake, 1991). More recently, however, it has been acknowledged that OCB may be recognized and rewarded during performance appraisals (Organ, 1997). CWB, on the other hand, is defined as intentional employee behavior that is harmful to the legitimate interests of an 1241

2 1242 DALAL organization (Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Martinko, Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002; Sackett & DeVore, 2001; see also Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). From a definitional perspective, therefore, OCB and CWB could be considered opposites in the sense that the former benefits the organization, whereas the latter harms it. Similar definitional notions of behavior exist in the social personality psychology domains. As Batson and Powell (2003) stated, The word prosocial does not appear in most dictionaries; it was created by social scientists as an antonym for antisocial (p. 463). Despite the aforementioned variance in empirical results, therefore, on the basis of construct definitions one might expect that employees who typically engage in OCB will tend not to engage in CWB that is, that there exists a strong negative relationship between OCB and CWB. However, several additional issues need to be considered. Specifically, (a) there are different categories of OCB and CWB, (b) there are several reasons why an employee might engage in OCB and CWB, and (c) the OCB CWB relationship is likely to be moderated by several variables. Dimensionality Organ and colleagues (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) reported two dimensions of OCB, namely an interpersonal dimension (OCB-I) and an organizational dimension (OCB-O). This taxonomy was formulated on the basis of the target of the behaviors: individual employees or the organization as a whole, respectively. Examples include volunteering to help a coworker (OCB-I) and praising the organization to outsiders (OCB-O). Although more elaborate taxonomies of OCB have subsequently been developed (e.g., Coleman & Borman, 2000; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), Organ and Paine (1999) argued that the original two-factor OCB model is the most stable and tends to underlie the more complex models. On the CWB side, Robinson and Bennett (1995) made a similar distinction between the interpersonally directed and organizationally directed aspects of what they called workplace deviance. Examples include gossiping about coworkers (CWB-I) and taking overly long breaks (CWB-O). The interpersonally directed versus organizationally directed distinction was also observed by Bennett and Robinson (2000) and Gruys and Sackett (2003, Study 2). In contrast, additional dimensions (e.g., Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995) have not been widely replicated. Both OCB and CWB, therefore, can be separated into behavior that is directed toward other employees and behavior directed toward the organization as a whole. Further support for this proposition comes from Bennett and Stamper s (2001) Q-sort and multidimensional scaling analyses of both positive and negative discretionary work behaviors. These authors found that OCB and CWB were opposite poles of one dimension; the other dimension pertained to the target of the behavior. Bennett and Stamper s (2001) results suggest that OCB-I and CWB-I represent behaviors designed to help and harm other employees, respectively (see also, in this regard, Kelloway et al., 2002). There should, consequently, be a strong negative relationship between OCB-I and CWB-I. Moreover, OCB-O represents behaviors designed to surpass required levels, whereas CWB-O represents employees behaving in ways they should not and/or failing to meet minimum requirements (Bennett & Robinson, 2002; Kelloway et al., 2002). Heckert and Heckert (2002) argued for a continuum, consisting of conforming acts in the middle, acts that violate norms (CWB-O) on one end, and acts that surpass normative expectations (OCB-O) on the other (see also Jermier et al., 1994). On the basis of construct definitions, therefore, OCB-O and CWB-O should be strongly negatively related. Although one might expect strong relationships between OCB-I and CWB-I and between OCB-O and CWB-O, it may not be as meaningful to examine the relationship between OCB-I and CWB-O or between OCB-O and CWB-I. In addition to comparing OCB and CWB, these latter relationships involve behaviors directed toward different targets. As an example, it is easier to interpret the relationship between behaviors designed to help others and those designed to harm others than it is to interpret the relationship between behaviors designed to help others and those designed to flout organizational regulations concerning work requirements. A finer grained analysis is provided by examining OCB and CWB directed toward the same target. However, the precise importance of the targets of behavior has not yet been conclusively established. Although, as mentioned previously, both the OCB and CWB literatures make the distinction between interpersonally directed and organizationally directed behavior, there is also some evidence that global OCB and CWB constructs are meaningful. For example, a recent OCB metaanalysis (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002) concluded that researchers have not done enough to justify separating the general or global dimension of OCB into more specific dimensions. On the CWB side, Lee and Allen (2002) found that CWB-I and CWB-O factors could not be empirically distinguished. Further, as Sackett (2002) stated, It appears reasonable to think in terms of an overall counterproductivity construct (p. 8). Marcus, Schuler, Quell, and Hümpfner (2002) and Sackett and DeVore (2001) have also described a global CWB factor. It may well be that a hierarchical structure, with interpersonal and organizational behaviors both loading on a general factor, best describes CWB (Marcus, et al., 2002; Sackett, 2002; Sackett & DeVore, 2001) and OCB. For this reason, the present metaanalysis assesses OCB CWB relationships at both the global and facet levels. Therefore, the following research questions were investigated: Research Question 1: What is the magnitude of the relationship between OCB and CWB? Research Question 2: What is the magnitude of the relationship between OCB and CWB directed toward the same target? Moreover, is this relationship substantially stronger than the one between OCB and CWB directed toward different targets? Antecedents The relationship between OCB and CWB can also be inferred by these constructs relationships with external variables. If OCB and CWB are very strongly related to each other, their relationships with antecedents should be of similar magnitude or, failing that, should at least exhibit similar patterns (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). Of particular interest is the fact that the sets of antecedents identified by the OCB and CWB literatures are very similar. The antecedents discussed next include those mentioned as shared

3 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1243 antecedents by Bennett and Stamper (2001) that is, job satisfaction, perceptions of organizational justice, positive affectivity, and negative affectivity. In addition, conscientiousness and organizational commitment are included because they too have featured fairly prominently in both OCB and CWB literatures. Job Attitudes and Organizational Justice Social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), the theory of psychological contracts (e.g., Rousseau, 1989), and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) have been used as explanatory mechanisms for the relationship between OCB and CWB on the one hand and organizational justice, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment on the other. These theories predict that employees respond to working conditions that are satisfying and to workplace processes, outcomes, and interactions that are fair by behaving in ways that benefit the organization and/or other employees (i.e., OCB) and by exhibiting commitment to the organization. In contrast, according to the theories, employees retaliate against dissatisfying conditions and unjust workplaces by engaging in behavior that harms the organization and/or other employees (i.e., CWB) and by a lack of organizational commitment. The social exchange, psychological contract, and reciprocity perspectives are reflected in much of the literature examining the relationship between antecedents and OCB or CWB. In their chapter on CWB, Sackett and DeVore (2001) wrote, There is a certain poetry in behaving badly in response to some perceived injustice (p. 160). Hollinger (1986) discussed a social bonding model and showed that organizational commitment (or lack thereof) predicted amount of CWB. With regard to job satisfaction, Hanisch and Hulin (1990) defined employee withdrawal (work withdrawal can be conceptualized as a subset of CWB-O) as a set of behaviors dissatisfied individuals enact to avoid the work situation (p. 63). Likewise, Organ s (1977) conceptualization of OCB was largely shaped by his belief that satisfaction was a strong predictor of employee performance despite consistent findings of weak satisfaction performance relationships. Specifically, Organ stated that employee job satisfaction might indeed predict employee actions that were excluded from researchers notions of performance but that nonetheless improved the functioning of organizations (i.e., OCB). Organizational commitment has also been included as an important predictor of OCB (Becker, 1992; O Reilly & Chatman, 1986; although see Williams & Anderson, 1991). Finally, Greenberg (1993) has stated that the relationship between organizational justice and OCB has preoccupied philosophers for centuries. To summarize, then, one should expect OCB and CWB to be related, in opposite directions, to the constructs of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational justice. With regard to the latter, however, Organ and Paine (1999) speculated that the (in)justice CWB relationship may be much stronger than the justice OCB relationship. That is, perceived injustice will definitely prompt CWB; in contrast, perceptions of high levels of justice may or may not prompt OCB. Yet meta-analytic research (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001) suggests that the difference between justice CWB and justice OCB relationships is probably slight. Conscientiousness A meta-analysis by Organ and Ryan (1995) found that conscientiousness was the best personality predictor of OCB. Similarly, Sackett and DeVore (2001), after reviewing meta-analytic evidence from the integrity test literature, the Big 5 literature, and the literature on the prediction of military performance (p. 156), concluded that the strongest relationships between personality and CWB were exhibited by conscientiousness or its facets. Of particular interest is the fact that the meta-analytic findings from Organ and Ryan (1995) and Sackett and DeVore (2001) suggest that the conscientiousness OCB and conscientiousness CWB relationships do not differ greatly in magnitude (although see LePine et al., 2002). One would accordingly expect that conscientious people will typically engage in OCB, whereas unconscientious people will typically engage in CWB. Positive and Negative Affect Spector and Fox (2002) argued that affect is associated with general physiological arousal and induces action tendencies (p. 5) that engender behavior via the formulation of behavioral intentions and/or the initiation of readiness to act. Spector and Fox asserted that the behavior may take the form of either constructive action (corresponding to OCB) or destructive action (corresponding to CWB). Although the relationship between affect and behavior is rather complex (Carlson, Charlin, & Miller, 1988; Carlson & Miller, 1987), there is some evidence that CWB is designed to ameliorate negative affect (NA; Spector & Fox, 2002), whereas OCB is designed to maintain positive affect (PA; Carlson et al., 1988; George & Brief, 1992). In general, Spector and Fox (2002) predicted strong PA OCB and NA CWB relationships. In fact, their model posits PA as the proximal cause of OCB and NA as the proximal cause of CWB. Extrapolating from the model, one could argue that people scoring high on PA would typically engage in OCB but that those scoring low on PA may or may not engage in CWB. Similarly, it could be argued that those scoring high on NA would typically engage in CWB but that those scoring low on NA may or may not engage in OCB. However, Spector and Fox did not completely discount the possibility of nontrivial PA CWB and NA OCB relationships. Conclusion Thus, the same constructs have been identified as antecedents by both the OCB and CWB research literatures. Yet there is insufficient information to indicate whether similar patterns across antecedent relationships can be observed for OCB and CWB. Although the relationships of the aforementioned antecedents with OCB have all been estimated by previous meta-analyses, on the CWB side only relationships with justice and conscientiousness have previously been assessed. The present study (partially) rectifies this lacuna so that antecedent behavior relationships for OCB and CWB can be compared. Research Question 3: Do OCB and CWB exhibit similar patterns of relationships with antecedents? Potential Moderator Variables There is reason to believe that the relationship between OCB and CWB will be moderated by several variables. Four potential

4 1244 DALAL moderators are examined here: source of ratings, inclusion of antithetical items, format of response options, and education level of rater. This is by no means an exhaustive list of moderators; as discussed later, other potentially important moderators could not be assessed because of lack of variance in the primary studies. Source of Ratings Sackett et al. (2005; see also Sackett, 2002) have recently conjectured that OCB CWB relationships may be much smaller when self-reports are used than when supervisor reports are used. They reasoned as did Spector and Fox (2002) that although some interpersonally directed CWBs may be easily observable by others, most CWBs are intended by the perpetrators to be private and, hence, unobservable. It therefore follows that supervisors have little basis for judging many CWBs. These authors have, in fact, made similar arguments with regard to some forms of OCB (see also Schnake, 1991). Sackett et al. have therefore proposed that supervisors will make judgments about employee CWBs (and perhaps some OCBs too) on the basis of their general impressions of the employees, an instance of halo error. Thus, a supervisor is likely to assign an employee consistent scores on OCB or CWB that is, high OCB and low CWB scores if the supervisor has a good impression of the employee and vice versa in the case of a bad impression. This will inflate OCB CWB relationships. It is therefore hypothesized that the OCB CWB relationship will be moderated by the source of the ratings. Specifically, relationships should be more strongly negative when the behaviors are rated by supervisors than when they are rated by the job incumbents themselves (i.e., self-ratings). Inclusion of Antithetical Items As Socrates recounts in Plato s Symposium (360 BC/2001), what is not beautiful need not be ugly and what is not good need not be bad. That is, negation (the addition of not) does not necessarily imply the lexical opposite (hereafter referred to as the antithesis). The distinction between these two forms is well established in the disciplines of philosophy and linguistics/pragmatics (Jordan, 1998). It therefore cannot be said that an employee fails to meet minimum required standards merely because he or she does not exceed requirements. Put differently, the absence of OCB is not identical to the presence of CWB (or vice versa). This issue becomes important during the construction of OCB and CWB inventories. Although some researchers (Fox et al., 2003; Schnake, 1991) have suggested that the practice of including any dysfunctional behaviors (that are subsequently reverse-scored) in OCB scales is undesirable, and others (Organ & Paine, 1999) have indicated their awareness of this issue (although they appear not to have taken a conclusive stand either way), many existing OCB inventories (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Smith et al., 1983) do contain examples of dysfunctional behavior. In contrast, the inclusion of examples of functional behavior in CWB inventories does not appear to have been as prevalent, although it has occurred occasionally (e.g., Marcus et al., 2002; Morris, 2001). Dysfunctional behaviors in OCB inventories (e.g., consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters, always finds fault with what the organization is doing ; Podsakoff et al., 1990) are very similar to CWBs. Equally, functional behaviors in CWB inventories (e.g., volunteer[s] to finish a project for a coworker who is sick ; Morris, 2001) are very similar to OCBs. It is therefore hypothesized that the magnitude of the OCB CWB relationship is moderated by the presence versus absence of antithetical items within measures of OCB and CWB. Specifically, the magnitude of the OCB CWB correlation should be stronger (negative) when such practices are adopted than when they are not. Format of Response Options Even if OCB and CWB are, in fact, very strongly negatively related, the strength of this relationship may appear to be lower in certain circumstances. Consider the case in which OCB and CWB are so strongly negatively related that they may be considered opposite poles of a single latent factor of discretionary work behavior. The correlation matrix in this case should exhibit only strong relationships: The relationship between two OCB items or between two CWB items will be strongly positive, whereas the relationship between an OCB item and a CWB item will be strongly negative. However, these strong OCB CWB relationships should not be observed if the data conform to an unfolding model as opposed to the traditional dominance model (Spector, Van Katwyk, Brannick, & Chen, 1997; van Schuur & Kiers, 1994). The dominance model assumes that relationships between observed and latent variables are linear or at least monotonic, whereas the unfolding model assumes quadratic or at least single-peaked relationships (Coombs, 1975; Davison, 1977). The difference can be illustrated by considering a continuous latent factor on which the locations of both items and respondents are mapped. The dominance model assumes that a respondent typically will not endorse those positively worded items (or reverse-scored negatively worded items) that have a more positive standing on the latent variable than he or she does. In contrast, the unfolding model assumes that a respondent typically will not endorse those items that have a more positive or a more negative standing on the latent variable than he or she does that is, the respondent typically will not endorse items that are distant, in either direction, from his or her position. 1 If the data conform to an unfolding model, the correlation matrix (after ordering items from severe CWB to severe OCB) will exhibit a simplex form: Correlations between items occupying adjacent positions on the latent factor will be high, whereas those between items on opposite poles of the latent factor will be close to zero or, at best, weakly negative (van Schuur & Kiers, 1994). The relationship between two OCB items or between two CWB items will therefore be strongly positive, but the relationship between an OCB item and a CWB item will be trivial. In other words, the OCB CWB relationship is likely to be stronger (negative) when the underlying data structure conforms to the tradi- 1 Consider, for instance, the item Did as much work as was expected of me. Dominance models assume that people will not endorse this item if they have done less work than was expected of them. In contrast, unfolding models recognize that people will not endorse the item either if they have done less work than was expected of them or if they have done more work than was expected of them. As a consequence, the latter category of people, who would be on the high end of the latent factor under an unfolding model, would be (mis)classified as being on the low end of the latent factor under a dominance model.

5 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1245 tional dominance model than when it conforms to the unfolding model. The unfolding model has been posited to underlie attitudinal and personality data. Such a model is most likely to operate when respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree that they would engage in particular OCBs and CWBs or when they are asked about the extent to which these behaviors are characteristic or uncharacteristic of them. In contrast, the traditional dominance model is likely to remain appropriate when participants report the frequencies of having engaged in particular OCBs and CWBs. Therefore, it is predicted that the OCB CWB relationship will be moderated by the type of response options. In particular, a stronger negative relationship is hypothesized for behavioral frequency response options than for agreement disagreement or characteristic uncharacteristic response options. Additional support for this proposition comes from the affect literature. Some evidence indicates that the use of frequency formats requires respondents to make logical and empirical connections between PA and NA, thereby increasing the strength of the (negative) relationship between them (Warr, Barter, & Brownbridge, 1983). Education Level of Rater The magnitude of OCB CWB relationships may be influenced by the education level of the rater. Stone, Stone, and Gueutal (1990) observed that most developers and users of questionnaires in I/O psychology have not been unduly concerned about whether respondents can comprehend questionnaire items and instructions, despite one third of the current U.S. workforce currently being functionally illiterate. Moreover, research in the field of education (e.g., Mathewson, 1984) has found that special pedagogical tools are needed in the schools to aid in the recognition and understanding of opposites and the ability to draw correct inferences from them. In general, therefore, the ability to detect opposites is likely to vary as a function of amount of education received (but see Cordery & Sevastos, 1993). Conceptual or definitional opposition (e.g., going above and beyond vs. not doing enough), of the kind potentially exhibited by OCB versus CWB, may be especially hard to detect. Therefore, provided that the source of OCB and CWB ratings is the same, it is predicted that the rater s education level will moderate the OCB CWB relationship. In particular, the relationship is hypothesized to be more strongly negative in studies with more highly educated respondents than in studies with less highly educated respondents. Moderation Hypotheses: The relationship between OCB and CWB will be stronger (in the negative direction) (a) when the source of ratings is the supervisor rather than the job incumbent him- or herself, (b) when the citizenship and counterproductive behavior measures contain antithetical items than when they do not, (c) when response options pertain to behavioral frequency than when they pertain to the degree of agreement or the extent to which they are characteristic of the ratee, and (d) when respondents are more highly educated than when they are less highly educated. Literature Search Method PsycINFO searches, using a variety of keywords, were conducted. In addition, manual searches were carried out in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology, Human Performance, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes from 1995 (publication year of the Robinson and Bennett study on workplace deviance) onward. Reference sections of located primary studies and previous meta-analyses of relevance (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; LePine et al., 2002; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Riketta, 2002; Salgado, 2002) were also perused for citations of relevance. Finally, an requesting unpublished manuscripts was sent to the Academy of Management s Research Methods Network. Inclusion Criteria Only those studies were included that involved work behavior that was intentional and (at least potentially) discretionary. Inclusion also required either (a) explicit mention of OCB or closely related constructs (e.g., organizational spontaneity) and CWB or closely related constructs (e.g., workplace deviance behavior) or (b) behavior measures that facilitated the creation of composites approximating these constructs. However, it was also necessary for the behavior constructs to be identifiable as either beneficial (OCB) or harmful (CWB) to the legitimate interests of the organization or its employees. Note that these procedures resulted in the exclusion of two projects cited in Sackett and DeVore (2001) as examples of the relationship between OCB and CWB. 2 With regard to the facet analyses, furthermore, inclusion required the behavior constructs to be targeted primarily at the organization as a whole (organizational) or employees therein (interpersonal). Finally, because satisfaction with any one facet of the job (e.g., coworkers) alone is a deficient measure of overall job satisfaction, satisfaction behavior relationships were only included in the present analyses if the satisfaction measure was either global or included more than one facet of satisfaction (so that a satisfaction composite could be calculated); in this regard, the present research follows Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patten (2001). It should be noted that the exclusion of a particular facet measure of behavior or a particular measure of satisfaction did not automatically necessitate the omission of the entire study from the meta-analysis. 2 In these two studies Project A (Campbell, 1990; McHenry, Hough, Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990) and Viswesvaran, Schmidt, and Ones (1999) Sackett and DeVore s (2001) determination of which dimensions constitute OCB versus CWB is not the only plausible one. All the dimensions, in fact, could be considered instances of either OCB or CWB: Employees could go beyond what is expected on a given dimension (OCB) or they could do less than what is required (CWB). For instance, although Sackett and DeVore classified the Project A dimension of effort and leadership as OCB, they themselves (p. 146) have classified examples of behavior pertaining to effort as CWB. (Moreover, Robinson & Bennett, 1995, have classified examples of both effort and leadership as CWB.) Because of the lack of completely defensible criteria on which to partition lower order constructs into OCB versus CWB, the present research does not include the Project A and Viswesvaran et al. studies in the list of primary studies. Other studies (e.g., Day & Silverman, 1989; Love & O Hara, 1987) were excluded for the same reason. An altogether different issue pertains to the third study cited by Sackett and DeVore (i.e., Hunt, 1996). The OCB composite Sackett and DeVore constructed from this study excludes Hunt s schedule flexibility as a component. Yet Hunt himself (p. 75) included schedule flexibility in OCB. The uncorrected correlation obtained in the present study between OCB and CWB composites was therefore 0.61 (as opposed to Sackett & DeVore s estimate of 0.67). In addition, although Hunt s overall sample size was indeed more than 18,000 (as Sackett & DeVore mentioned), the sample sizes he used to estimate correlations had a mean of about 4,000.

6 1246 DALAL Results of Searches and Application of Inclusion Criteria Forty-nine independent samples were identified from 38 studies. Two raters separately coded the samples. The first rater has a PhD in I/O psychology. The second rater was, at the time of coding, a 5th-year graduate student in I/O psychology (she has subsequently received her PhD). Both coders were familiar with the OCB and CWB research literatures. The overall agreement level between coders was 96.8%. However, the most important judgments were those that related to coding behavior measures into the six construct categories (OCB, CWB, OCB-I, OCB-O, CWB-I, and CWB-O); agreement for only these judgments was therefore calculated separately and was found to be 94.1%. All disagreements were resolved using a subsequent joint inspection. Of the 49 samples, 15 were from published articles; the remaining were from conference presentations and posters, unpublished dissertations, master s theses, honors theses, and data sets. The overall sample size was 16,721 (median across samples 169). Not all relationships of interest could be assessed in every sample; the analysis-level sample size therefore differs. As can be seen in Table 1, the collection of samples was fairly representative across respondent gender, age, level of education, job experience, and job type. Moreover, although the samples were predominantly Caucasian and were collected predominantly in the United States, exploratory moderator analyses revealed no racial or national differences in the OCB CWB relationship. Procedure The theory of composites and the requisite formulae (Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981) were used to create composites, estimate the reliability of composites, and estimate the correlation between two composites (or the special case of a correlation between a composite and a single external variable). The use of composites was necessary when global measures of OCB, CWB, or presumed antecedents thereof were constructed from lower order dimensions provided in the primary studies. Meta-analytic procedures specified by Hunter and Schmidt (1990) were used to correct correlations for unreliability and to account for the effects of sampling error on the variance of the correlations. When possible, correction for unreliability was performed locally (i.e., at the level of the individual sample). When a reliability estimate was not provided for a measure in an individual primary sample, however, the correction was accomplished using the mean reliability from the reliability distribution generated from the primary samples. The accuracy of the meta-analytic effect size estimate was examined by means of 90% confidence intervals. Homogeneity of effect sizes was Table 1 Demographic and Other Characteristics of Primary Sample Respondents Characteristic Description or percentage of primary samples with characteristic Gender 70% women 26.5% 70% men 10.2% No preponderance of either gender 53.1% Age (years) M of primary sample means SD of primary sample means 7.99 Ethnicity 70% Caucasian employees 51.0% 70% non-caucasian employees 4.1% No preponderance of any ethnicity 12.2% Level of education (highest level attained) 70% high school completion 0.0% 70% high school completion 16.3% 70% junior college or technical school completion 28.6% 70% college completion 16.3% 70% postgraduate degree completion 2.0% Country in which surveyed a United States 77.5% Canada and South Africa 4.1% each Australia, Austria, Germany, Lebanon, Mexico, Turkey, and an unspecified Pacific Rim country 2.0% each Job experience (years) M of primary sample means 9.22 SD of primary sample means 5.42 Job type/title (representative selection) Clerical and secretarial staff; computer scientist/information technologist; crafts employee; educator (teacher/ professor); employed student; foreman/supervisor; maintenance staff; manager/administrator; mail processor; military; nurse; professional; protective professions employee; restaurant employee; vehicle operator Note. Percentages may sum to less than 100% because of missing data (samples for which information was not provided). a Not all respondents were nationals of the country in which they were surveyed. In the Lebanese sample, for instance, some respondents were nationals of other Arab countries and yet others were Americans.

7 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1247 assessed using 90% credibility intervals followed by Hunter and Schmidt s (1990) z tests for moderation. A confidence interval, constructed around the uncorrected sample-size-weighted mean effect size using the standard error of uncorrected effect sizes, indicates the extent to which sampling error influences the estimate of the population effect size (Whitener, 1990). In contrast, a credibility interval, constructed around the corrected samplesize-weighted mean effect size using the standard deviation of corrected effect sizes, addresses the issue of whether the studies in the meta-analysis are more appropriately viewed as components of one or of several subpopulations (Whitener, 1990). A confidence interval that contains zero implies that the mean (uncorrected) effect size is not significantly different from zero. A large credibility interval implies that the mean (corrected) effect size is actually an estimate of the average of several subpopulation parameters (Whitener, 1990) and that moderator analysis is required. Results Reliability of Work Behavior Table 2 presents sample-size-weighted mean reliabilities for OCB and CWB at the global and facet levels. These means were imputed for studies that failed to provide the necessary local reliability information. The sample-size-weighted mean reliabilities (Cronbach s alphas) for OCB and CWB were 0.79 and 0.77, respectively. Relationship Between Global Constructs Results of the meta-analysis conducted to establish the relationship between the global OCB and CWB constructs are provided in Table 3. The sample-size-weighted mean correlation between OCB and CWB was After correcting for unreliability in both OCB and CWB, the sample-size-weighted mean correlation was The 90% confidence interval, based on the uncorrected correlations, indicated that the relationship was significantly different from zero. The finding of a nontrivial negative relationship was strengthened by the results of Hunter and Schmidt s (1990) version of the file drawer analysis. The analysis revealed that approximately 110 additional samples with effect sizes of exactly 0.00 would be needed to reduce the magnitude of the corrected relationship to the trivial level of 0.10 (chosen because it would imply that OCB and CWB explain only 1% of the variance in each other). Nonetheless, the other bound ( 0.39) of the confidence interval indicates that OCB and CWB were not strongly related either. Table 2 Reliability Estimates for Work Behavior Constructs Construct k N Reliability OCB 47 16, OCB-I 24 5, OCB-O 23 5, CWB 49 16, CWB-I 20 4, CWB-O 27 6, Note. k number of samples in which reliability information was provided; N total number of individuals in the k samples; Reliability mean of reliability (Cronbach s alpha) estimates, weighted by sample size (N); OCB organizational citizenship behavior; CWB counterproductive work behavior; I interpersonal; O organizational. Table 3 Meta-Analytic Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior k N Mean r Mean SD r SD 90% CI 90% CrI 49 16, ( 0.39, 0.15) ( 0.89, 0.24) Note. k number of samples in which relationship was estimated; N total number of individuals in the k samples; mean r mean of uncorrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N); mean mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N); SD r standard deviation of uncorrected correlations; SD standard deviation of corrected correlations; 90% CI lower and upper limits of 90% confidence interval; 90% CrI lower and upper limits of 90% credibility interval. The presence of a wide credibility interval suggests that there were circumstances in which the obtained relationship was stronger than the overall mean and other circumstances in which it was weaker. Later I report on variables that moderate the OCB CWB relationship. First, however, it is necessary to discuss the metaanalytic relationship between the components of OCB and CWB. Relationships Between Facets In addition to the relationship between global OCB and global CWB, the relationships between components of OCB and CWB were examined. As mentioned previously, this level of comparison is important to ensure that behavioral constructs with similar content are being compared. Table 4 displays the meta-analytic correlations. The following conclusions can be drawn: (a) OCB CWB relationships at the facet level were not strong; (b) OCB CWB relationships within target referent (i.e., OCB-I and CWB-I, and OCB-O and CWB-O) were not substantially stronger than OCB CWB relationships between targets or referents (i.e., OCB-I and CWB-O, and OCB-O and CWB-I), and (c) OCB OCB and CWB CWB relationships between targets or referents (i.e., OCB-I and OCB-O, and CWB-I and CWB-O) were substantially stronger than OCB CWB relationships within target referent (i.e., OCB-I and CWB-I, and OCB-O and CWB-O). These results therefore demonstrate that the relationship between OCB and CWB, at the facet level, is modestly negative. The results also indicate that the OCB versus CWB distinction is more important than that between interpersonally directed versus organizationally directed behavior. In other words, the target referent of behavior may not be as important as often believed; the previous examination of the global-level OCB CWB relationship is, therefore, meaningful and warranted. Antecedents of OCB and CWB If OCB and CWB are strongly related to each other, they should have similar patterns of relationships with presumed antecedents. Job attitudes (job satisfaction and organizational commitment), perceptions of organizational justice, and certain dispositional variables (conscientiousness and trait affect) have been identified in the research literature as antecedents of both OCB and CWB. Meta-analytic relationships of these variables with OCB and CWB are displayed in Table 5. This table contains results from previously published meta-analyses (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;

8 1248 DALAL Table 4 Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix for Behavior Facets Construct OCB-I OCB-O CWB-I CWB-O OCB-I 0.73 OCB-O 0.64 (0.49) a 0.74 CWB-I 0.11 ( 0.11) b 0.17 ( 0.13) c 0.68 CWB-O 0.16 ( 0.14) d 0.33 ( 0.27) e 0.70 (0.52) f 0.77 Note. Correlations are weighted by sample size (N). Those outside parentheses are correlations corrected for unreliability (i.e., mean ); those in parentheses are uncorrected correlations (i.e., mean r). Values on the diagonal (in italics) are internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach s alphas). k number of samples in which relationship was estimated; N total number of individuals in the k samples; Mean r mean of uncorrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N); Mean mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N); SD r standard deviation of uncorrected correlations; SD standard deviation of corrected correlations; 90% CI lower and upper limits of 90% confidence interval; 90% CrI lower and upper limits of 90% credibility interval; OCB organizational citizenship behavior; CWB counterproductive work behavior; I interpersonal; O organizational. a k 22, N 4,800, SD r 0.15, SD 0.18, 90% CI (0.36, 0.62), 90% CrI (0.34, 0.94). b k 19, N 3,962, SD r 0.25, SD 0.36, 90% CI ( 0.30, 0.08), 90% CrI ( 0.71, 0.08). c k 19, N 3,962, SD r 0.18, SD 0.26, 90% CI ( 0.29, 0.03), 90% CrI ( 0.60, 0.26). d k 21, N 4,526, SD r 0.25, SD 0.32, 90% CI ( 0.31, 0.04), 90% CrI ( 0.70, 0.37). e k 20, N 4,269, SD r 0.21, SD 0.25, 90% CI ( 0.43, 0.10), 90% CrI ( 0.74, 0.09). f k 20, N 4,136, SD r 0.15, SD 0.26, 90% CI (0.38, 0.66), 90% CrI (0.27, 1.00). Colquitt et al., 2001; LePine et al., 2002; Meyer et al., 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Riketta, 2002; Salgado, 2002) that have examined one or more of these relationships (refer to the Appendix for further details). The table also contains meta-analytic results from the primary studies examined in this study; these results, however, are not comprehensive because they are limited to studies that examined the OCB CWB relationship. 3 As can be seen from Table 5, the analyses from the present set of primary studies represent the only CWB meta-analyses available for four of the six antecedents examined. On the OCB side, in contrast, there exists at least one previous meta-analysis for each antecedent. The comparisons presented here focus on the ranges of results obtained using the sets of meta-analyses; when possible, results are presented both with and without the results from the present set of primary studies. Antecedent-behavior results based on only one meta-analysis (usually, the present noncomprehensive analysis) are presented in subsequent text with an approximately equal to ( ) sign to emphasize their provisional nature. Note that the OCB versus CWB comparisons pertain to the magnitude, rather than the direction, of their antecedent relationships. The first antecedents examined are organizational justice and conscientiousness, for which previous CWB meta-analyses (in addition to the previous OCB meta-analyses) have been conducted. There does not appear to be much difference in organizational justice s relationship with CWB ( range 0.25 to 0.36 including the present results and 0.33 to 0.36 without them) and its relationship with OCB ( range 0.20 to 0.34 including the present results and 0.23 to 0.34 without them). The relationships of conscientiousness with CWB ( range 0.26 to 0.38 including the present results and 0.26 without them) and with OCB ( range 0.23 to 0.30 including the present results and 0.23 to 0.29 without them) likewise appear comparable. Conclusions pertaining to the remaining antecedents should be regarded as tentative because the only standards of comparison on the CWB side are the present (noncomprehensive) analyses. Job satisfaction s relationship with CWB ( 0.37) appears to be stronger than its relationship with OCB ( ranges from 0.16 to 0.28 including the present results and from 0.24 to 0.28 without them). Organizational commitment, too, appears to be slightly more strongly related to CWB ( 0.36) than to OCB ( ranges from 0.20 to 0.32 both with and without the present results). The discrepancy appears larger for NA: Its relationship with CWB ( 0.41) seems to be much stronger than its relationship with OCB ( 0.10 both with and without the present results). This finding supports Spector and Fox s (2002) contention that NA is more strongly related to CWB than to OCB. Vis-à-vis PA, however, the situation is less clear. A fairly substantial discrepancy in the obtained PA OCB results was observed between Organ and Ryan s (1995) results and the present results ( for Organ and Ryan 0.12; for present results 0.34). 4 The true relationship may be intermediate: On the basis of five studies (N 985) conducted after Organ and Ryan s metaanalysis, Borman, Penner, Allen, and Motowidlo (2001) reported an uncorrected PA OCB relationship of 0.18, which, when corrected using unreliability estimates from the present set of studies, yields The wide range of PA-OCB relationship estimates renders comparison with the PA-CWB relationship ( 0.34) difficult. Regardless of which of the aforementioned PA-OCB estimates is considered, however, the results appear not to support Spector and Fox s (2002) contention that PA is more strongly related to OCB than to CWB. A preliminary conclusion can therefore be reached: Antecedent CWB relationships are generally a little stronger than antecedent OCB relationships, but the extent of discrepancy varies somewhat 3 It should be noted that there is very little overlap of primary studies between the present results and the previous meta-analyses because the latter predate most of the primary studies used in the present analyses. 4 Note that two of Organ and Ryan s (1995) studies (i.e., about one third of their total number of studies for this analysis) technically measured extroversion rather than PA.

9 OCB AND CWB META-ANALYSIS 1249 Table 5 Meta-Analytic Results for the Presumed Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior OCB CWB Antecedent Meta-analysis k N Mean r Mean k N Mean r Mean Job satisfaction LePine et al. (2002) 72 7, Organ and Ryan (1995) 9 2, Present study 25 6, , Organizational commitment LePine et al. (2002) 54 5, Organ and Ryan (1995) 4 1, Meyer et al. (2002) 22 6, Riketta (2002) 42 10, Present study 22 5, , Organizational justice LePine et al. (2002) 40 1, Organ and Ryan (1995) 17 2, Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) 7 1, Colquitt et al. (2001) 8 1, , Present study 10 1, , Conscientiousness LePine et al. (2002) Organ and Ryan (1995) 10 1, Salgado (2002) 13 6, Present study 10 3, , Positive affect Organ and Ryan (1995) Present study 23 4, , Negative affect Organ and Ryan (1995) Present study 23 4, , Note. k number of samples in which relationship was estimated; N total number of individuals in the k samples; Mean r mean of uncorrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N); Mean mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N); OCB organizational citizenship behavior; CWB counterproductive work behavior. Dashes indicate relationships not assessed by the meta-analysis in question. Present study analyses are restricted to primary studies that examined the OCB CWB relationship (i.e., they are not exhaustive antecedent-behavior meta-analyses). Further details concerning the other meta-analyses are provided in the Appendix. across antecedents. In other words, not only the magnitudes but also the patterns of antecedent behavior relationships for OCB versus CWB appear to differ. Moderator Analyses Four moderators of the OCB CWB relationship had been hypothesized. According to the hypotheses, the OCB CWB relationship would be stronger (in the negative direction) when raters were supervisors or were highly educated, response options pertained to behavioral frequencies, and measures contained antithetical items. The search for moderators was empirically justified by a wide credibility interval for the OCB CWB relationship. Table 6 displays the results of the moderator analyses. As hypothesized, the relationship strength differed as a function of the source of the ratings: Supervisor ratings yielded a much stronger relationship than did incumbent (self) ratings. The OCB CWB relationship was also stronger, as expected, when measures contained antithetical items. Furthermore, the relationship was influenced by the format of response options; the moderation effect, however, was in the direction opposite to that hypothesized. That is, the OCB CWB relationship was stronger when response options were of the agreement disagreement or characteristic uncharacteristic variety than when they were of the behavioral frequency variety. Finally, the extent to which the rater was educated had little effect on the OCB CWB relationship. However, the (potential) moderator variables were themselves intercorrelated; thus, the effects of different moderators may have been confounded. In addition, the dichotomization of moderators necessary for testing moderation according to Hunter and Schmidt s (1990) method resulted in a loss of information. This may have been problematic, especially in the case of the education-level variable, because the cut score selected was somewhat arbitrary. Consequently, Hedges and Olkin s (1985; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) modified weighted least squares (WLS) multiple regression approach was also used. This approach examines the effect of each moderator while controlling for the effects of other moderators; it also does not require dichotomization of moderators. Another difference is that this method operates on correlations uncorrected for artifacts (such as unreliability). Despite these differences, the WLS regression analysis confirmed that the source of ratings, the presence or absence of antithetical items, and the nature of response options were important moderators of the OCB CWB relationship, whereas the level of education of the rater was unimportant. Discussion Both citizenship and counterproductive behavior are taking their rightful places at the table of job performance. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the extent to which these two constructs are related to each other. The present meta-analytic research estimated the true OCB CWB relationship at both the global and facet levels and assessed moderators of this relationship. It also examined the relationships of these two constructs with a common core of presumed antecedents.