Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Performance Evaluations: Distributive Justice or Injustice?

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine employees’ reactions to the use of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in performance evaluations. In addition, gender differences in such reactions were examined.

Design/methodology/approach

Data were obtained from a sample of working adults (n = 78) and a sample of students (n = 249). In the first study, participants compared the fairness of 11 different weighting combinations of OCB and core task behavior, using a within-subjects design. In the second study, low, medium, and high weightings of OCB were compared using a between-subjects design.

Findings

In both studies, participants reported that evaluating employees on OCB was fair. OCB weightings of 30– 50% were perceived as the most fair. Men felt that OCB weighting of 20–30% were the most fair and women felt that OCB weightings of 25–50% were the most fair.

Implications

Considering that employees are evaluated on their OCB, it is important to know that they feel that it is fair to do so. Choosing how heavily to weigh OCB may be more difficult, although weightings of 25–30% OCB were perceived to be fair to both the men and women in this research.

Originality/value

This is the first study to examine employee reactions to the use of OCB in performance evaluations and add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that there are gender differences in the perceptions of OCB.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247–260.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (2001). The influences of ratee gender on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2561–2587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisors and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Yee Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M. (2002). A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 927–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring organizationally directed citizenship behaviour: Reciprocity or ‘It’s my job’? Journal of Management Studies, 41, 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodchuk, K. M. (2007). Work environments that negate counterproductive behaviors and foster organizational citizenship: Research-based recommendations for managers. The Psychologist—Manager Journal, 10, 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guest, D. E. (1998). Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 649–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, S. K., & Holladay, C. L. (2004). Mood at work, transformational leadership, and organizational citizenship behavior: Testing an integrative model. A paper presented at the Annual Conference for the Academy of Management, New Orleans, Louisiana.

  • Holladay, C. L., Halverson, S. K., Strong, M. H., Quiñones, M. A., & Caplinger, J. A. (2004). Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Salary: The Moderating Effects of Employee Race, Gender, and Job Level. A paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Illinois.

  • Johnson, J. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 984–996.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. K. (2008). I second that emotion: Effects of emotional contagion and affect at work on leader and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 28, 629–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidder, D. L., & McLean Parks, J. (2001). The good soldier: Who is s(he)? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 939–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovell, S. E., Kahn, A. S., Anton, J., Davidson, A., Dowling, E., Post, D., et al. (1999). Does gender affect the link between organizational citizenship behavior and performance evaluation? Sex Roles, 41, 469–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salesperson’s performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milkovich & Newman. (2002). Compensation, 7th Edition. Chapter 11: Performance Appraisals.

  • Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employees’ perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, J. M., Sackett, P. R., & Mercer, M. (1989). The role of prescribed and nonprescribed behaviors in estimating the dollar value of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pond, S. B., Nacoste, R. W., Mohr, M. F., & Rodriguez, C. M. (1997). The measurement of organizational citizenship behavior: Are we assuming too much? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1527–1544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 98–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, L. A., Kacmar, M., Carlson, D. S., & Zivnuska, S. (2002). Interactive effects of personality on contextual performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 911–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, University of Colorado Denver, P.O. Box 173364, Campus Box 165, Denver, CO, 80217, USA

    Stefanie K. Johnson

  2. Organization Development, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 2450 Holcombe, Houston, TX, 77021, USA

    Courtney L. Holladay

  3. Edwin L. Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, P.O. Box 750333, Dallas, TX, 75275-0333, USA

    Miguel A. Quinones

Authors
  1. Stefanie K. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Courtney L. Holladay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miguel A. Quinones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefanie K. Johnson.

Additional information

Received and reviewed by former editor, George Neuman.

Appendix: Scenario 1

Appendix: Scenario 1

Company A weights organizational citizenship behaviors 100% and core task behaviors 0% in determining employees overall performance level. By doing so, employees are then ranked according to their level of performance on the two work behaviors.

 

 

OCB = 100

CTB = 0

Score

Ranking

Person A

1 = Low

1 = Low

100

3

Person B

1 = Low

2 = Average

100

3

Person C

1 = Low

3 = High

100

3

Person D

2 = Average

1 = Low

200

2

Person E

2 = Average

2 = Average

200

2

Person F

2 = Average

3 = High

200

2

Person G

3 = High

1 = Low

300

1

Person H

3 = High

2 = Average

300

1

Person I

3 = High

3 = High

300

1

  1. Rankings: 1 being the best to 3 being the worst

 

Strongly disagree

 

Neutral

 

Strongly agree

1

2

3

4

5

  • —1. These rankings are fair.

  • —2. The rankings reflect the effort the employees have put into their work.

  • —3. The rankings are appropriate for the work behaviors the employees have completed.

  • —4. The rankings reflect what the employees have contributed to the organization.

  • —5. The rankings are justified, given the employees’ performances.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, S.K., Holladay, C.L. & Quinones, M.A. Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Performance Evaluations: Distributive Justice or Injustice?. J Bus Psychol 24, 409–418 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9118-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9118-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation