Deviant and Citizen 1

The Deviant Citizen: Clarifying the Measurement of OCB and its Relation to CWB

Suzy Fox Human Resources and Industrial Relations Loyola University Chicago

Paul E. Spector Department of Psychology University of South Florida

Deviant and Citizen 2

The Deviant Citizen: Clarifying the Measurement of OCB and its Relation to CWB

Voluntary Work Behavior (VWB) is an umbrella term referring to two faces of extra-role behavior in organizations: Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). Counterproductive Work Behavior covers a wide range of volitional behaviors that harm or are intended to harm a work organization or its members (Spector & Fox, 2005). Various aspects of CWB have been studied as work aggression (Fox & Spector, 1999; Neuman & Baron, 2005), deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), revenge (Bies & Tripp, 2005), retaliation (Folger & Skarlicki, 2005), mobbing (Zapf & Einarsen, 2005), and bullying (Rayner & Keashly, 2005), among others. With rare exceptions (see Bies & Tripp, 2005; Folger & Skarlicki, 2005), the underlying assumption has been that CWB is dysfunctional and harmful. This assumption is beginning to be challenged in the CWB research community (Fox, 2005; Galperin & Burke, 2006; Warren, 2003). At the same time, over the past 25 years researchers have studied (and struggled to define) Organizational Citizenship Behavior, initially conceptualized by Organ (1988) as individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization (p. 4). Although the OCB construct has been substantially expanded (e.g., Graham, 1991) and realigned with related constructs such as contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1997), we have chosen to return to the earlier definition, in order to draw a sharper contrast with both CWB and in-role task performance. Just as CWB researchers are questioning the assumption that CWB is necessarily dysfunctional for organizations and their members, OCB

Deviant and Citizen 3 researchers are beginning to question the assumption that these extra-role behaviors necessarily contribute to organizational effectiveness (e.g., Hunt, 2002). These common views of CWB as uniformly harmful and OCB and uniformly helpful has promoted the idea that these forms of behavior are reciprocal, with individuals who frequently engage in one tending to avoid engaging in the other (Sackett, 2002). Indeed several studies that have investigated CWB and OCB in combination have concluded that they are negatively correlated (e.g., Dineen, Lewicki, & Tomlinson, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002). However, as pointed out by Dalal (2005) there are several methodological issues that cast doubt on the reciprocal idea. In a meta-analysis, he showed that the relationship between CWB and OCB is substantially affected by item overlap between measures of both, whether an agreement or frequency response is used, and whether self-reports or other-reports are utilized. Relationships are strongest with item overlap, agreement, and other-reports. Furthermore, not every study has found negative relationships (see Marcus, Schuler, Quell & Hmpfner, 2002). To the extent that the counterintuitive phenomena of helpful CWB and harmful OCB harmful are occuring, and the methodological problems in existing studies have yielded incorrect conclusions, the assumption that CWB and OCB are reciprocal is called into question. The objective of the current study was to test whether CWB and OCB are reciprocal, that is, correlated negatively and oppositely related to the same variables. We used as our theoretical basis, the Voluntary Work Behavior framework (Spector & Fox, 2002), in which CWB and OCB are viewed as parallel and opposite forms of Extra-Role Behavior (see Figure 1). Expectations drawn from this framework as well as the literature (e.g., Dineen et al., 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002) are that CWB and OCB would be reciprocal in that they are negatively correlated, and that

Deviant and Citizen 4 antecedents such as job stressors and job-related emotions would be related to CWB and OCB in opposite directions. Insert Figure 1 about here

However, a fundamental challenge to empirical efforts to demonstrate relationships between CWB and OCB lies in the instruments and methods that have been used to measure OCB (Dalal, 2005). We will proceed to argue that the commonly used measures of OCB contain so many item overlaps with CWB measures, that correlations found between the two variables are almost by definition spurious. An alternative instrument (the OCB-Checklist or OCB-C) was developed, in order to focus on behaviors that employees themselves view as above and beyond role requirements, and which do not reflect the mere absence of counterproductive work behaviors. By eliminating items that reflect in-role behavior, and more importantly the absence of CWBs, we argue that this new OCB-C provides a cleaner test of relationships between CWB and OCB (and their respective antecedents) than do the currently used measures. If inverse relations between CWB and OCB remain even after the potentially contaminating items are removed, that would provide stronger support for the Voluntary Work Behavior framework.

OCB Measurement Issues Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has been among the more hotly contested constructs over the past 25 years of Organizational Behavior research. Organs (1988) early, concise definition of OCB (see above) has driven much of the work in the field. The key delimiters of OCB, behaviors that are voluntary or extra-role, non-rewarded, and organizationally functional, have been revisited and contested for nearly two decades. Organ

Deviant and Citizen 5 himself (1997) substantially reconceptualized OCB. In distinguishing OCB from the domain of required task performance, Organ has replaced the extra-role and non-reward delimiters with task-related versus contextual (or social maintenance) characteristics, which is more similar to Borman and Motowidlos (1993) contextual performance than to the original definition of OCB. Other revisions of OCB include expansion into the domain of political and communal citizenship (Graham, 1991) and discriminant relationships with counterproductive or anti-role work behaviors (Spector & Fox, 2002). To those are added a number of related, variously overlapping constructs, including prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), extra-role behavior (Katz, 1964;Van Dyne, Cummings & McLean Parks, 1995), pro-role behavior (McLean Parks & Kidder, 1994), and organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992). The purpose of this paper is not to argue that there should be one definitive, ascendant conceptualization of OCB. Rather, researchers must be mindful and explicit in choosing the parameters of the OCB-related construct they are investigating. Perhaps more importantly, the measures they use must reflect the definition and key parameters of their OCB construct. And herein, we submit, lies the key problem challenging this field of study. Whereas early studies tended to use the scale introduced by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983), more recent empirical studies of OCB have used scales developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990), Moorman and Blakely (1995), and Williams and Anderson (1991), among others. The Podsakoff et al. scale is the most-used measure of OCB based on Organs (1988) five dimensions of OCB: altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue (LePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002). This instrument has good

Deviant and Citizen 6 reliability and factorial validity, and with the possible exception of civic virtue, overall appears to have good content validity in terms of representing Organs five conceptual domains. However, a closer inspection of the actual items in each of the four above-mentioned scales illustrates several of the key challenges to conceptual clarity that permeate the OCB literature. Table 1 presents sample items from these OCB instruments that illustrate these challenges. They include a disconnect between the assessment and conceptualization of OCB, item overlap between OCB and CWB (that is, an item in which failure to engage in CWB is scored as OCB), the inclusion of items that are more reflective of personality than behavior, and a management rather than employee view of what constitutes citizenship. Insert Table 1 about here

Divergence of Conceptual Definition and Operationalization. These instruments have sometimes been used in studies where the theoretical conceptualization of OCB differs from those for which the scales were originally developed. Van Dyne, Cummings and McLean Parks (1995) argue that many researchers seek to stretch definitions of constructs (e.g., extra-role behavior, OCB, and prosocial organizational behavior) to subsume related constructs. They criticize several OCB researchers for examining constructs that do not represent the theories supposedly being tested, or using instruments that do not measure the constructs that they are intended to measure (p. 226). Thus some studies presuming to test Organs (1997) redefinition of OCB (or alternatively prosocial behavior or contextual performance) use the same or similar scales as early OCB studies, thereby failing to reflect the definitional distinctiveness of the constructs (see also Vey & Campbell, 2004).

Deviant and Citizen 7 Item Overlap. It may be argued that some items in these OCB scales lie outside the conceptual domain for which they were intended. Of key interest are item overlaps between OCB and CWB measures, which can be expected to substantially affect variable correlations (see Dalal, 2005). That is, many of the items reflect an absence of counterproductive (or anti-role) work behaviors (CWB), rather than a presence of behaviors that exceed roles or requirements. Table 1 illustrates several examples of OCB items that are actually reverse-worded or reversecoded CWB items that also appear in CWB scales. For example, three of the four OCB scales include Takes undeserved breaks (reverse-coded) or Does not take extra breaks; compare this to the Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C, Spector, Fox, Penney, Goh, Bruursema, & Spector, 2006) item Taken a longer break than you were allowed to take. The Willams and Anderson (1991) scale includes Conserves and protects organizational property , while the CWB-C includes Purposely wasted your employers materials/supplies and Purposely damaged a piece of equipment or property. The Podsakoff et al. (1990) item, Does not abuse the rights of others, is similar to several CWB-C items covering starting rumors, being nasty, insulting, threatening, and making fun of coworkers and clients. Similarly, the critical question of whether OCB covers in-role or extra-role domains is reflected in additional items that appear to tap in-role, required, or expected behavior, and thus blur the distinction between OCB and task performance. Such items ask about good attendance or doing job tasks unusually well. The inability of subject matter experts to distinguish between in-role and extra-role behaviors (Morrison, 1994; Vey & Campbell, 2004) has been interpreted as evidence for fuzzy conceptual distinctiveness, whereas it could alternatively be argued that the items themselves engender this fuzziness.

Deviant and Citizen 8 Behaviors Versus Personality. The B in OCB clearly refers to behavior, and thus scales to assess it should ask about behavior itself and not other things. Some of the items of the Podsakoff et al. (1990) scale involve beliefs or attributions about the persons behavior and/or motives which seem more reflective of personality than behavior itself (see Table 1). For example, the item Always focuses on whats wrong, rather than the positive side, seems to be more an indicator of negative affectivity than of performance. A more clearcut behavioral checklist asking about what the person has actually done would be preferable to items asking one organization member to make attributions about the behaviors or personality of another. The accuracy and relevance of attributions of intention have been challenged in the extra-role literature (Bolino, Turnley & Niehoff, 2004; Van Dyne, Cummings & McLean Parks, 1995), particularly when the respondent is rating the behavior of others (e.g., supervisor, subordinate, or peer). Who Defines Citizenship? Most of the OCB literature has taken a managerial perspective from which both the theory and measurement of OCB were developed. The early Smith, Organ and Near (1983) scale resulted from interviews with managers, who were asked to identify instances of helpful, but not absolutely required, job behavior (p. 656). Much of the subsequent substantive development viewed OCB as a wish-list of behaviors that are desired, but cannot be required, by employers. This is quite different than behaviors that are intended by the actor to help the organization, its social system, or organizational members (e.g., Brief & Motowidlo, 1983, defining prosocial organizational behavior; Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995, defining extra-role behavior). OCBs are assumed to be helpful to the organization. It is not always clear, however, who gets to do the assuming, how we determine if a given behavior is in fact helpful, and to whom it is helpful and/or harmful.

Deviant and Citizen 9 If the phenomenon of interest is a set of behaviors desired by management, then intention should not be the focus; if the phenomenon of interest is the extent to which employees perform behaviors that they believe are above and beyond expectations or obligations, then it is the actors (employees) rather than the supervisors (employers) who should distinguish in-role from extra-role behaviors. A key reason Organ (1997) and other scholars have abandoned the in-role/extra-role delineation of OCB is the empirical evidence that employees have difficulty distinguishing between them, and that employees and managers have different perceptions of which behaviors are in-role and which are extra-role (Morrison, 1994; Organ, 1997). We suggest that the problem may not be conceptual fuzziness, but rather that many of the items used in these studies reflect unclear distinctions between in-role and extra-role behaviors, or reflect differences between the perspectives of employees and their supervisors. We agree with Vey and Campbell (2004), who lament that the same scales are being used by researchers with two very different notions of OCB those who view the difference between in-role and extra-role as critical, and those whose redefinition of OCB has eliminated that difference as a delineator. Measurement of OCB The key argument of the current paper is that if OCB is viewed as qualitatively distinct from in-role performance and from counterproductive work behaviors, then measurement of OCB should not include items that reflect high levels of in-role behaviors or the absence of counterproductive work behaviors. Similarly, if the substantive concern of the research focuses on phenomenological characteristics of OCB such as personal, interpersonal, climate, justice, emotion- and stress-related antecedents and responses, then the definition of OCB and the items that reflect it should be employee- rather than employer-centered.

Deviant and Citizen 10 To summarize, the soft spots (Organ, 1997, p. 86) in OCB research may be due not so much to conceptual differences among researchers, but rather to four basic problems with the instruments commonly used in empirical studies. 1) The scale used has not always matched the theoretical conceptualizations underlying the OCB study. 2) Rather than measuring above and beyond behaviors, many OCB items measure in-role task performance or the absence of counterproductive work behaviors. 3) Rather than offering specific behavioral criteria, many OCB items require respondents to make attributional judgments of intention. 4) Items are derived from theory and empirical studies that typically were based upon supervisors rather than job incumbents perceptions of required versus discretionary contributions. The current study utilized an alternative measure of OCB that was developed in response to the four criticisms outlined above. The first purpose was to develop such a scale and demonstrate its distinctiveness from CWB. CWB was measured with the 45-item Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C), a measure that has been used in a number of prior studies (Spector, Fox, Penny, Bruursema, Goh & Kessler, 2006). In addition to a global CWB score, this scale can be broken down into two dimensions reflecting Robinson and Bennetts (1995) distinction between deviance targeting the organization (CWBO) and persons in the organization (CWBP). Alternatively, a finer-grained breakdown provides five subscales (abuse toward others, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal), representing distinct domains of research in the industrial/organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resource management literatures. Turning to OCB, before we could undertake this study we had to address a concern with the available measures of OCB. If the distinctiveness of OCB and CWB were to be a core

Deviant and Citizen 11 assumption of the study, the presence of OCB items reflecting an absence of CWB and additional items tapping in-role task performance would surely confound the results. This concern had previously been expressed by Lee and Allen (2002) and by Kelloway et al (2002), who responded in part by selectively retaining from existing scales only those items they judged to be nonoverlapping. We chose instead to develop a new checklist of OCB items that would parallel the format of the CWB-C, but that would eliminate reverse-coded or reverse-worded CWB items. This measure was developed on the basis of earlier definitions (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Katz, 1964; Smith, Organ & Bateman, 1983) of a construct comprising volitional, extra-role behaviors--behaviors that go beyond the expectations and requirements (formal, social, or psychological) of the job, and that help or intend to help the organization or its members. The new OCB-Checklist (OCB-C) is a behavioral checklist derived from hundreds of examples submitted by employees of voluntary, helpful behaviors at work that go above and beyond the call of duty. This checklist has the advantages that it is behavioral (that is, does not ask supervisors to make belief- or personality-based attributions for employee behaviors), focuses on behaviors that employees themselves view as above and beyond role requirements, and does not reflect the mere absence of counterproductive work behaviors. Integrative Model of Voluntary Work Behavior Spector, Fox, and colleagues have studied Counterproductive Work Behavior as a special case of behavioral strain in a job stress framework. Drawing upon apparent parallels between CWB and OCB, Spector and Fox (2002) expanded this to an integrative model of Voluntary Work Behavior (Figure 1), in which CWB and OCB follow parallel, but reciprocal paths. Environmental factors such as stressors are appraised, leading to positive or negative emotional responses. Contingent upon a number of intermediary factors (including baseline emotional

Deviant and Citizen 12 traits, personality, control beliefs/perceptions, and personal and social resources), negative appraisal and subsequent negative emotions are more likely to continue the stress process, leading to behavioral strain, which we define as CWB. A different appraisal leading to positive emotional response is more likely to proceed as eustress, enhancing the likelihood of OCB. Support for these distinct expectations abounds in the CWB and OCB literatures. As noted earlier, CWB and OCB has been shown to be negatively correlated (see Dalal, 2005 for a review). CWB has been associated with negative phenomena, experiences, and perceptions. These include organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, perceived injustice, supervisory bullying, low control, negative emotions, frustration, and job dissatisfaction (Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox, Spector & Miles, 2001; Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). OCB, dimensions of OCB (e.g., altruism and compliance), and related constructs (e.g., prosocial organizational behavior, contextual performance, and organizational spontaneity) have been associated with positive phenomena, experiences, and perceptions. Predictors include positive mood and emotion, perceived justice, job satisfaction, leader behaviors, and leader-follower trust (George & Brief, 1992; Moorman, 1991; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Our second purpose with this research was to test our model of voluntary work behavior to see if we could provide support for the reciprocal nature of CWB and OCB, using scale in which the measurement issues described earlier were addressed.

Study 1 Self-report survey data were collected from a convenience sample of full-time employees representing a variety of occupations in several organizations in Chicago and Tampa. The dual

Deviant and Citizen 13 purpose of this study was 1) to examine relations among CWB, OCB and their respective antecedents, and 2) to employ and refine the new measure of OCB derived directly from theory and employee-contributed critical incidents. We chose self-reports as the most appropriate means of assessing behavior, given Dalals (2005) findings that other sources of data such as supervisors were subject to halo and lack of discriminant validity. The Integrative Stressor-Emotion Model of Voluntary Work Behavior (Figure 1) summarizes expectations that job stressors predict negative emotion and dissatisfaction, as well as higher levels of CWB; negative emotion and dissatisfaction in turn predict CWB. Conversely, positive emotion and job satisfaction predict higher levels of OCB. Finally, CWB and OCB will be inversely related, specifically between OCB-Person and CWB-Person, and between OCBOrganization and CWB-Organization, respectively. A complete test of the VWB model is beyond the scope of this paper, which focuses on the relations among the behaviors themselves. Therefore only the latter portion of the model was examined in Study 1. H1. Negative emotion will be directly related to CWB-P and CWB-O. H2. Positive emotion and job satisfaction will be directly related to OCB-O and OCB-P. H3. CWB-P will be inversely related to OCB-P and CWB-O will be inversely related to OCB-O. Method. The research team distributed surveys in five organizations in Chicago and Tampa. In addition, students enrolled in a Master of Science in Human Resources program in Chicago, all full-time employees and mostly managers, distributed the surveys to employees in their respective organizations. Of the 169 respondents, 24.4% were men and 75.6% were women; 26.4% were managers and 73.6% were non-managerial employees. No further demographic data were collected due to the sensitive nature of the questionnaire items.

Deviant and Citizen 14 Measures. The Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS), developed by Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, and Kelloway (2000), measured a wide range of emotions experienced at work. Each item asks employees to indicate how often any part of the present job has made them feel a particular emotion (e.g., anxious, enthusiastic, or furious). A positive emotions score was obtained by summing the scores on the 10 positive affect items, with high scores representing high levels of positive emotion on the job. A negative emotions score was obtained by summing scores on the 10 negative affect items, with high scores representing high levels of negative emotion on the job. Counterproductive work behavior was assessed with a 45-item behavioral checklist (CWB-C: Spector et al., 2006). Each item asks the employee to indicate how often he or she has done each of the behaviors on their present job. The five response choices range from 1 = "never" to 5 = "every day". Items were categorized as either behaviors targeting the organization or people (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). As discussed above, Organizational Citizenship Behavior was measured with a new instrument driven by the original conceptualization of OCB. This measure was designed to have a clean set of behavioral items that are viewed by employees as helpful extra-role behaviors, and that exclude reverse-worded CWBs. Thirty-eight employed graduate students and alumni of Masters of Science in Human Resources and MBA programs were instructed to generate as many examples as they could remember of themselves or people with whom they worked engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors in their workplace. OCB was defined for them as follows: Sometimes people at work may make extra efforts that go above and beyond the call of duty. They may do things to help other individuals (e.g., Volunteered to pick up a

Deviant and Citizen 15 coworker at the airport) or to help the organization (e.g., Stayed late to finish up work that had to be done). A total of 214 items were generated. After redundancies were eliminated, like items were consolidated, and a couple of unusable suggestions were eliminated (helped save a coworker from eternal damnation), we were left with a 42-item checklist. Interestingly, not a single instance of a reverse-worded CWB was submitted. To parallel the CWB-C (and consistent with existing OCB research, such as McNeely and Meglino, 1994 and Williams, & Anderson, 1991), two subscales were created, representing OCB directed toward the organization (OCBO) and OCB directed toward persons in organizations (OCBP). Items were assigned to these two categorized based on ratings by 22 subject matter experts (MSHR and MBA students, not the same students who had submitted the initial items). Here only items were retained for which there was at least 70% agreement among the raters, resulting in a 15-item OCB-O and a 14-item OCB-P subscale. The global OCB variable retained all 42 items.

Results. Contrary to hypotheses derived from the model, and contrary to at least modest negative relations between CWB and OCB summarized above from the research literature, we found virtually no inverse relations between CWB and OCB. On the contrary, as shown in Table 2, employees who reported high levels of CWB also reported high levels of OCB, particularly behaviors that helped or harmed other people in the organization (r=.20, p