Academia. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración ISSN: 1012-8255 [email protected] Consejo Latinoamericano de Escuelas de Administración Organismo Internacional

Espejo, Alvaro Role and to perform organizational citizenship behaviors Academia. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, núm. 48, 2011, pp. 1-14 Consejo Latinoamericano de Escuelas de Administración Bogotá, Organismo Internacional

Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=71623420002

How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Academia, Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 48, 2011, 1-14 Copyright 2011 de Cladea, http://revistaacademia.cladea.org

Role perceptions and motivations to perform organizational citizenship behaviors

Percepciones de rol y motivaciones para desempeñar comportamientos ciudadanos en la organización

Alvaro Espejo Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Santiago de Chile, Chile [email protected]

Abstract Resumen

Using a sample of supervisors from a Chilean retail Este estudio analiza el efecto que tiene la percepción company, we studied the effects of employees’ role de los empleados acerca de su rol en tres tipos de com- perceptions on three types of organizational citi- portamiento ciudadano en la organización (OCB) zenship behavior (OCB) and on their to y en su motivación para llevar a cabo estas conduc- perform these behaviors. We recognized four types tas. Para ello, se considera una muestra de supervi- of motives: extrinsic, intrinsic, altruistic, and insti- sores de una empresa del sector retail en Chile. Se tutional. Results showed that when employees are distinguen cuatro tipos de motivos: 1) extrínsecos, externally motivated to perform OCB (by extrinsic 2) intrínsecos, 3) altruistas y 4) institucionales. Los or institutional motives), their motivation increases resultados muestran que cuando los empleados están when they perceive the behaviors as in-role. However, motivados en forma externa para llevar a cabo estos when employees are internally motivated to perform comportamientos (por motivos extrínsecos o insti- OCB (by intrinsic or altruistic motives), their motiva- tucionales), su motivación aumenta cuando perci- tion is mostly independent of their role perceptions. ben estos comportamientos como parte de su rol. Sin embargo, cuando los empleados están motivados Key words: OCB, motivation, role, Chile. en forma interna para llevar a cabo estos compor- tamientos (por motivos intrínsecos o altruistas), su motivación es en general independiente de las per- cepciones acerca de su rol.

Palabras clave: OCB, motivación, rol, Chile.

consejo latinoamericano de escuelas de administración, cladea 1 Role perceptions and motivations to perform organizational citizenship behaviors

1. Introduction concern and prosocial values, came from litera- ture on volunteerism, and reflected a desire to The concept of organizational citizenship contribute either to the or to other behavior (OCB) was originally developed in people. These two altruistic motives were sig- 1983 as a way to link attitudes and performance nificantly related to OCB, after controlling for (Organ, 2004). Initially, OCB was perceived as the effects of personality orientation and organ- including only extra-role behaviors. However, izational justice. The third motive they studied studies starting with the one by Morrison (1994) as a possible cause of OCB was impression showed that some employees may perceive management (IM), i.e. the desire to enhance one behavior as extra-role, whereas another their image in the organization (Bolino, 1999). employee may perceive the same behavior as in- Results of the study by Rioux and Penner were role. Therefore, Organ (1997) extended the con- far from conclusive on this issue: IM motives struct of OCB to include behaviors perceived as only related to the OCB dimension of sports- in-role or extra-role, as long as these behaviors manship. Moreover, in a further study, Finkel- are not enforceable and do not have system- stein and Penner (2004) found a negative effect atic rewards associated with them. Although of IM motives on OCB directed toward the there is extensive research on OCB, there are organization. This negative relationship was few studies on the effect of OCB-related role also found by Espejo and Cardona (2005) in a perceptions (McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison & study of Latin American managers. These con- Turban, 2007) and none relating these percep- flicting results might be due to differences in tions to motives. role perceptions. For example, Yun, Takeuchi Several studies have shown that different & Liu (2007) found that role ambiguity moder- employees perceive OCBs in different ways. ates the relationship between self-enhancement Some think of them as part of their role, motives and OCB. In order to clarify the effect whereas others consider them to be beyond the of role perceptions on motives, in this study we call of duty (eg. McAllister et al., 2007; Mor- analyze how different motives to perform OCB rison, 1994; Van Dyne, Kamdar & Joireman, are affected by the employee’s of the 2008). Most studies on OCB role perceptions behavior as in-role or extra-role. have focused on its effect on the level of OCB In the following section, we will review the performed (Morrison, 1994) and on its mod- relevant literature on OCB, role perceptions, erating effects on the relationships between and motivation, and present the hypotheses for OCB and several antecedents (Chiaburu, 2007; this study. Next, we will describe the methods Coyle-Shapiro, Kessler & Purcell, 2004; McAl- we use and then we will present the results of the lister et al., 2007; Van Dyne et al., 2008). We analyses. We will end with a discussion of the argue that these moderating effects of OCB role results, and also identify the limitations of this perceptions on the level of OCB are due to a dif- study and offer avenues for further research. ference in the employees’ motives for perform- ing OCB and that the effects differ according to 2. Theory and hypotheses the type of behavior. Although most research on OCB has disre- 2.1. OCB dimensions garded the direct motives for these behaviors, Smith, Organ and Near (1983) were the first recent studies show that underlying motives are to measure OCB and to propose a set of OCB important for a better understanding of OCB dimensions. Factor analyses on their initial (Donia, Johns & Raja, 2010). Penner, Midili questionnaire gave place to the emergence of and Kegelmeyer (1997) were the first to pro- two factors: altruism and general compliance. pose a functional approach to OCB, seeking to Later, different studies added other dimensions answer the critical question of: “why has OCB to the OCB measure. One of the most relevant occurred?” (p. 118). Rioux and Penner (2001) alternative measures of OCB is the one by Van explored the effect of three types of motives Dyne, Graham and Dienesch (1994) based on on OCB. Two of these motives, organizational political philosophy. Using exploratory factor

2 Academia, revista latinoamericana de administración, 48, 2011 Espejo analysis, they identified five factors: loyalty, and promotive. His main point of disagree- obedience, and three types of participation ment was the distinction between in-role and (social, advocacy, and functional). The other extra-role. Although the same Organ (1990) scales developed are mainly variations of the conceptualized OCB as an extra-role con- original Smith et al. (1983) questionnaire. struct, he changed his position due to the dif- In their review of the OCB literature, Pod- ficulties distinguishing in-role from extra-role sakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) behaviors (Morrison, 1994). What some indi- identified seven dimensions. Because there viduals consider extra-role others see as in-role, is considerable overlap among different OCB so some behaviors would be OCB for certain dimensions, Coleman and Borman (2000) tried individuals and would not be OCB for others. to establish the common phenomena behind Therefore, Organ adopted a definition of OCB them. They suggested that dimensions in the cit- based on the concept of contextual perfor- izenship performance domain can be grouped mance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Borman in three categories: interpersonal (OCBI), job/ and Motowidlo defined contextual perfor- task (which we call OCBT), and organizational mance in opposition to task performance. They (OCBO). In order to come to this classification, state that task performance “is the proficiency they examined all dimensions in the literature with which job incumbents perform activities through exploratory factor analysis, multidi- that are formally recognized as part of their mensional scaling analysis, and cluster analy- jobs, … activities that contribute to the organi- sis. Traditional dimensions, such as altruism, zation’s technical core either directly by imple- conscientiousness, and loyalty fit this new clas- menting a part of its technological process, or sification. Altruism corresponds to behaviors indirectly by providing it with needed materi- directed toward specific individuals (OCBI), als or services” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p. such as helping to orient new coworkers. Con- 73). Contextual performance therefore refers scientiousness represents behaviors oriented to the activities which are not seen as directly toward the job or task (OCBT), such as per- impacting the organization’s technical core. forming duties with extreme care. Finally, loy- It deals with those activities which “support alty represents behaviors oriented toward the the organizational, social, and psychological organization (OCBO), such as actively defend- environment in which the technical core must ing the organization against outside threats. function” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p. 73). Consequently, citizenship behaviors are 2.2. OCB role perceptions defined to include behaviors which can be per- Van Dyne, Cummings and McLean Parks ceived as in-role by some individuals and as (1995) developed an exhaustive categoriza- extra-role by others. This definition helps clar- tion of extra-role behaviors. Their list included ify the concept, but there are still issues which organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), need to be addressed. There is little clarity on prosocial organizational behaviors (PSOB), which OCB dimensions are mostly perceived as whistle-blowing (WB), and principled organi- extra-role and which are mostly seen as in-role. zational dissent (POD). They identified orga- Parks and Kidder (1994) suggested a continuum nizational citizenship behaviors as promotive in OCB role perception, with conscientious- extra-role behaviors (as opposed to challenging ness (a part of OCBT) being the most passive or prohibitive), focused on the perceived out- form of extra-role (most similar to in-role) and comes and performed by members of an organi- altruism (a part of OCBI) being the most active zation for the benefit of the organization. form of extra-role. Vey and Campbell (2004), Organ (1997) agreed in some aspects of Van using a sample of undergraduate students with Dyne et al’s (1995) conceptualization of OCB, work experience, found support for that con- but differed in many others. His main point of tinuum. On the one hand, all items in the con- agreement was the view of OCB as affiliative scientiousness dimension were rated as in-role, (performed by members of the organization) with the different items ranging from 81.8% to 94.9% of in-role perception. On the other hand, consejo latinoamericano de escuelas de administración, cladea 3 Role perceptions and motivations to perform organizational citizenship behaviors

four out of six items of the altruism dimension Based on the research reviewed above, the were rated mostly as extra-role, ranging from first question we ask is: Are all OCB dimen- 15.2% to 29.3% of in-role perception. However, sions equally perceived as extra-role or in- two items were rated mostly as in-role (51.5% role? In order to answer this, we will analyze and 73.5% of in-role perception). The civic vir- whether Vey and Campbell’s (2004) findings tue dimension (a part of OCBO) was split; three are also observed in a supervisory sample in a items were rated as extra-role and three items more collectivistic cultural context. as in-role. Studying also OCBO, Coyle-Shapiro Thus, we propose the following hypothesis. et al. (2004) found that most employees classi- Hypothesis 1: Individuals’ categorization of fied these behaviors as in-role. behaviors as in-role or extra-role will depend There are reasons to believe that cultural on the OCB dimension being evaluated. The factors, in particular collectivism, can affect frequency of in-role categorization will be the role perceptions. Collectivism is the most highest for the OCBI dimension and will be the widely studied cultural variable in manage- lowest for the OCBT dimension. ment research (Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges, The second question we ask is: Do employee Javidan, Dorfman & Gupta, 2004; Triandis, role perceptions affect their level of OCB in 2002). The dimensions of collectivism identi- every dimension? Morrison (1994) argues fied by Triandis (2002) might have an effect on that employees who see these behaviors as in- how individuals perceive OCB across cultures. role perform more OCB. However, the three- The first dimension is the way in which people dimensional framework of OCB has not been define the self. According to Triandis, individ- tested for role perception differences. This leads ualists see themselves as autonomous and inde- us to our second hypothesis: pendent. Collectivists, on the other side, see Hypothesis 2a: Employees who perceive themselves as interdependent with others, like OCBI as part of their role will perform more of a family. Individualists analyze behavior using these behaviors than employees who perceive individuals as the unit of analysis, whereas col- OCBI as beyond their role. lectivists use groups. Another dimension iden- Hypothesis 2b: Employees who perceive tified by Triandis is the collectivists’ emphasis OCBO as part of their role will perform more on relatedness versus rationality, taking into of these behaviors than employees who perceive account the needs of others. Therefore, tak- OCBO as beyond their role. ing into account these two dimensions, in a Hypothesis 2c: Employees who perceive more collectivistic culture, like Chile (Hofst- OCBT as part of their role will perform more of ede, 2001), employees might perceive behaviors these behaviors than employees who perceive directed toward other employees (OCBI) as OCBT as beyond their role. part of their role, and perform more OCBI than Even if the levels of OCB performed do not in individualistic cultures. A third dimension depend on employee role perceptions, the rea- identified by Triandis is the way people struc- sons behind employees’ behaviors may vary ture their goals. Individualists give priority depending on their views. Next, we will present to individual goals, whereas collectivists give a motivational framework for OCB and propose priority to group goals, although often for col- hypotheses for its relationship with employee lectivists group goals will be compatible with role perceptions. personal goals. Therefore, it is plausible that employees in Chile might perceive organiza- 2.3. Motivational framework tional goals as their own, thus viewing OCBO Traditional motivation theories, with the excep- as part of their role. The final dimension is the tion of studies on altruism (Batson, 1991) have emphasis collectivists put on duties and obliga- disregarded other serving motives, and have tions over individual preferences. This can also assumed that individuals act on the basis of make employees view a broad array of behav- their self-interest. In this context, they distin- iors as part of their duty, in particular those guish between motives that arise internally and related to their job (OCBT). motives that come from external sources. The

4 Academia, revista latinoamericana de administración, 48, 2011 Espejo most complete theory in this sense is self-deter- Intrinsic motives are characterized by an mination theory (SDT), developed by Deci and internal locus of causality and an internal locus Ryan (1985). SDT distinguishes between inter- of consequence. Intrinsic motives appeal to the nal and external locus of causality, although satisfaction an individual expects to experience they present a continuum meaning that many from performing a certain behavior. In other actions are not purely internally or externally words, the experience of or pleasure caused. In this theory, a particular action has that results from performing that specific task an internal perceived locus of causality when is what motivates the individual. An example the individual feels like the agent of his or her of behavior caused by intrinsic motives is when behavior. On the other hand, an action has an an employee works overtime because he or she external perceived locus of causality when the likes to work in that project and feels it is a pro- individual’s behavior is determined by out- fessional challenge. side forces that do not feel like his or her own Altruistic motives are characterized by an (Gagne & Deci, 2002). internal locus of causality and an external Since the first studies about OCB were locus of consequence. Altruistic motives appeal conducted (Smith et al., 1983), literature has to the benefits the individual expects others to implicitly assumed that citizenship behaviors experience as a consequence of the behavior. are related to altruistic motives. In order to An example of behavior caused by altruistic study this assumption, we need to analyze not motives is when an employee works overtime only the origin of the action (locus of causality), because he or she wants to contribute to the but also its beneficiary.F or this purpose, we use goals of the organization. the concept of locus of consequence (Cardona, Institutional motives are characterized by an Lawrence & Espejo, 2003). An action has an external locus of causality and an external locus internal locus of consequence when the indi- of consequence. Institutional motives appeal to vidual expects that consequences of the action compliance to institutional norms and rules. will have a direct impact on him or herself. People acting by institutional motives engage Conversely, an action has an external locus of in activities which are coherent with their consequence when the individual expects that roles and the institution they belong to, such as consequences of the action will have an impact impression management behaviors. An exam- on others. In most cases, actions have conse- ple of this motivation is when an employee does quences both in the individual and in the envi- some extra effort because he or she fears that ronment. The individual will be motivated by otherwise he or she may be seen as deviant. different types of motives when he or she con- siders these different expected consequences in Figure 1. Typology of motives the decision to perform the action. If we consider locus of causality together with locus of consequence, we can classify different Intrinsic Altruistic motives in a four-category typology of work motives motives motivation (see Figure 1). We identify four pos- Internal sible motives for action which we call: extrinsic, intrinsic, altruistic, and institutional. Extrinsic motives are characterized by an external locus of causality and an internal Extrinsic Institutional

Perceived locus causality of Perceived motives motives

locus of consequence. Extrinsic motives are the External rewards an individual expects to receive from others in exchange for that behavior. An exam- ple of behavior caused by extrinsic motives is Internal External an employee who works overtime because he or Perceived locus of consequence she expects to receive an overtime payment.

consejo latinoamericano de escuelas de administración, cladea 5 Role perceptions and motivations to perform organizational citizenship behaviors

These four types of motives are not mutually Impression management (IM) motives exclusive but complementary. In general, peo- (Bolino, 1999; Bolino, Turnley & Niehoff, ple act on the basis of a combination of motives 2004) might also vary according to role percep- (Amabile, 1993). Hennessey and Zbikowski tions. The employee who wants to avoid look- (1993) showed that in many cases extrinsic ing bad in front of the organization, or may motives can reinforce intrinsic motivation. even risk losing their job, engages in observ- Using an exchange perspective, Cardona, Law- able behaviors, if they feel it is part of their rence and Bentler (2004) present evidence that role. In this case, we talk about institutional individuals’ relationships with their organiza- motives, because the reason for performing tions depend on a combination of perceived the behaviors is to strengthen (or at least not economic rewards, perceived job character- weaken) the relationship with the organiza- istics, and perceived organizational support. tion. Empirical results relating these motives Perceptions of high economic rewards tend to to OCB are mixed. Whereas Rioux and Pen- foster extrinsic motivation, perceptions of a job ner (2001) found a positive effect of impression with interesting characteristics (such as variety management on the sportsmanship dimension, or ) tend to foster intrinsic motiva- Finkelstein and Penner (2004), and Espejo tion, and perceptions of a supportive organiza- and Cardona (2005) found a negative effect of tion tend to foster altruistic motivation through IM motives on OCBO. However, in line with the internalization of the norm of reciprocity. Bolino and his colleagues’ ideas, we expect that The results of this study suggest that not only employees who perceive OCB as part of their these motivations coexist together but also that role will perform more OCB due to IM or insti- they are positively correlated. tutional motives. Hypothesis 4: Institutional motives will be 2.4. Motives, OCB, and role perceptions more important for employees who perceive OCB as part of their role than for employees 2.4.1. Externally caused motives: who perceive OCB as beyond their role. Extrinsic and institutional Traditionally, literature has excluded extrinsic 2.4.2. Internally caused motives: motives as determinants of citizenship behav- Intrinsic and altruistic iors (Cardona et al., 2004). Espejo and Cardona Literature in OCB has mainly assumed that (2005) found no effect of these types of motives altruistic motives cause OCB. Initial evidence on the different OCB dimensions. However, on this relationship was provided by McNeely Morrison (1994, p.1545) suggests that “a criti- and Meglino (1994), who found that individu- cal difference between an in-role and an extra- als who scored high in concern and empathy role behavior is the extent to which others tended to perform prosocial behaviors directed reward the behavior and impose sanctions if it toward other individuals. Later, Rioux and is absent.” As a result, in-role behavior is more Penner (2001), and Finkelstein and Penner likely to be linked to extrinsic rewards and (2004), found strong effects of one altruistic sanctions. Therefore, employees who perceive motive (prosocial values) on interpersonal citi- OCB-type behaviors as in-role may tend to be zenship behaviors, whereas impression manage- more extrinsically motivated than employees ment did not have any significant effect. Espejo who perceive these behaviors as extra-role. and Cardona (2005) showed that, together with Hypothesis 3: Extrinsic motives will be more altruistic motives, intrinsic motives are also important for employees who perceive OCB as related to OCB, especially with task-directed part of their role than for employees who per- behaviors. Employees who perform OCB based ceive OCB as beyond their role. on intrinsic or altruistic motives (both internal motivations) will probably not change their

6 Academia, revista latinoamericana de administración, 48, 2011 Espejo behaviors if they perceive them as in-role or 4. Measures extra-role. Therefore, we do not expect differ- ences in these motives due to role perceptions. 4.1. Motives We used the OCB Motives Inventory by Espejo 3. Method and Cardona (2005). For each OCB dimension we asked participants to rate their motives for 3.1. Participants and procedure performing that specific behavior. We intro- We collected data from supervisory-level duced the scale by asking “when I perform this employees from a Chilean company in the type of behavior, I do it because…” and then retail sector, who were enrolled in an online we presented the 8-item scale. Therefore, each course. We guaranteed confidentiality to all participant answered the motives’ scale three participants. All surveys were internet-based times; one time for each OCB dimension. and stored on the university’s server. Evans and We included the same items used by Espejo Mathur (2005) described a series of advantages and Cardona (2005) in Latin American nations, and disadvantages of web-based surveys. Most who reported reliabilities ranging from .69 advantages relate to ease and cost, whereas most to .96 for the different motives. The original disadvantages relate to the participants’ inter- questionnaire was written in English and then net access. Since all participants in our study translated into Spanish, using a back-transla- were currently enrolled in an online course, tion method (Brislin, 1986). During the trans- all of them had internet access. This could help lation process, the wording of some items was explain the high response rate we obtained. We adapted to achieve a meaning in Spanish closer asked 503 employees at a supervisory-level to to the original meaning in English. complete the questionnaire, and we obtained 299 responses, giving a 59% response rate. In 4.2. Organizational citizenship behavior a meta-analysis considering 68 surveys in 49 We measured the three OCB dimensions sug- studies, Deutskens, De Ruyter, Wetzels and gested by Coleman and Borman (2000). To Oosterveld (2004) found a mean response measure OCBI, we used 5 items from Lee and rate for online surveys of 39.6%. Although the Allen’s (2002) OCBI scale. They reported a reli- response rate in this study is high, as in all vol- ability of .83 for peer ratings of this dimension. untary studies we cannot rule out the possibil- To measure OCBO, we used 5 items from Lee ity of a self-selection (Heckman, 1979). We and Allen’ (2002) OCBO scale. They reported a discuss this issue in more depth in the discus- reliability of .88 for peer ratings of this dimen- sion section. Most employees, 68%, were sales sion. To measure OCBT we used Moorman and supervisors and 32% were supervisors in admin- Blakely’s (1995) 4-item personal industry scale. istrative functions. The sample came from stores Moorman and Blakely reported a reliability of distributed throughout the country. 45 % of the .61 for self-rated personal industry. Cardona sample came from the capital of Chile, Santiago, and Espejo (2003) used Moorman and Blakely’s and a 55% came from other regions. personal industry scale in Spain and reported In the questionnaire, we asked respondents to reliabilities ranging from .78 (self-rating) to .89 first rate one dimension of OCB and then to eval- (supervisor and peers rating). Since Espejo and uate the motives for engaging in those specific Cardona (2005) already used this scale in Span- behaviors. Then we repeated the same procedure ish, we used their translation. for the other OCB dimensions. Participants Table 1 presents an exploratory factor analy- answered a five-point Likert scale, ranging from sis on the OCB scale. Reliabilities are shown in absolutely disagree to absolutely agree. Table 2.

consejo latinoamericano de escuelas de administración, cladea 7 Role perceptions and motivations to perform organizational citizenship behaviors

Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis on OCB scale For example, there is a .80 correlation between extrinsic motives to perform OCBO and OCBI OCBO OCBT extrinsic motives to perform OCBT. This result Item 1 0.63 0.17 0.17 is according to expectations due to conceptual Item 2 0.64 0.26 0.01 and methodological issues. Conceptually, an Item 3 0.84 0.01 0.01 employee can be motivated for the same factors Item 4 0.77 0.02 0.14 to perform different behaviors (Cardona, Law- Item 5 0.84 -0.04 0.14 rence & Espejo, 2003). Methodologically, we Item 6 0.10 0.46 0.55 used the same scale to measure the same type of Item 7 0.06 0.73 0.12 motives, only changing the initial description Item 8 0.13 0.81 0.13 of the behavior. Second, there are some high Item 9 0.08 0.81 0.06 correlations between the two external motives Item 10 0.19 -0.03 0.57 (extrinsic and institutional). These results sug- Item 11 0.19 0.24 0.59 gest that the scales for these behaviors should Item 12 -0.01 -0.05 0.82 be further developed in order to better capture Item 13 -0.01 0.26 0.43 the distinctiveness of these motives. Scale reliabilities for OCBI, OCBO, and 5. Results motives for these behaviors are all over .75. However, in the case of OCBT, scales are less Table 2 presents correlations and scale reli- reliable. The alpha for the OCBT scale is .50 and abilities for the main variables in this study. the scales for intrinsic and altruistic motives to Consistent with previous research by Espejo perform OCBT are .69 and .52. Because of this, and Cardona (2005), in general, OCB dimen- results regarding OCBT should be interpreted sions relate to intrinsic and altruistic motives, with caution. whereas extrinsic and institutional motives Table 3 shows the percentage of the sam- are not significantly related to OCB. There is ple that classifies each citizenship dimension a high correlation among several dependent as in-role. Results do not support Hypothesis variables in our study (motives to perform 1: “Individuals’ categorization of behaviors as citizenship behaviors). First, the same type of in-role or extra-role will depend on the OCB motive is correlated across OCB dimensions. dimension being evaluated. The frequency of

Table 2. Correlations and reliabilitiesa for main variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Motives 1. Institutional (.86) for 2. Extrinsic .56** (.84) OCBI 3. Intrinsic .02 -.06 (.75) 4. Altruistic .07 .00 .58** (.77) Motives 5. Institutional .69** .54** .05 .07 (.94) for 6. Extrinsic .49** .76** -.05 -.01 .65** (.93) OCBO 7. Intrinsic -.05 -.02 .26** .30** .03 .03 (.79) 8. Altruistic -.08 .00 .33** .48** -.03 .04 .58** (.75) Motives 9. Institutional .63** .54** -.02 .03 .69** .57** .03 -.04 (.93) for 10. Extrinsic .49** .73** -.02 .05 .57** .80** -.02 -.02 .67** (.88) OCBT 11. Intrinsic .03 .07 .30** .33** .06 .07 .43** .46** .05 .05 (.52) 12. Altruistic -.03 -.03 .30** .49** .02 .05 .39** .67** .02 .03 .51** (.69) Behaviors 13. OCBI .01 -.08 .36** .48** .07 -.02 .33** .36** -.02 .00 .29** .34** (.81) 14. OCBO .05 .02 .32** .46** .04 .03 .34** .50** .01 .02 .42** .38** .25** (.75) 15. OCBT .02 .01 .21** .24** .08 .08 .18** .25** -.02 .04 .31** .29** .27** .36** (.50)

a Reliabilities are presented in the diagonal.

8 Academia, revista latinoamericana de administración, 48, 2011 Espejo in-role categorization will be the highest for the We also found some support (p = .10) for the OCBI dimension and will be the lowest for the interpersonal dimension. However, we found OCBT dimension.” Although, as we expected, no differences for OCBT. This result might be the OCB dimension with higher in-role per- affected by the low sample size in the extra-role ception was OCBT (90,0%), the dimension group for OCBT (N = 30, 10,0% of the sample). with the lowest in-role perception was OCBO Extrinsic motives gain relevance when and not OCBI (see Table 3). All three dimen- employees perceive the behaviors as in-role. sions were perceived by the employees mainly Our results support hypothesis 3: “Extrinsic as part of their job requirements. As discussed motives will be more important for employees before, the higher level of collectivism in Latin who perceive OCB as part of their role than for America, compared to the United States, can employees who perceive OCB as beyond their help explain why many employees view helping role” for all types of OCB. behaviors as part of their role. Institutional (or impression management) motives also vary with role perceptions, as sug- Table 3. In-role classification gested by hypothesis 4: “Institutional motives will be more important for employees who perceive OCB dimension Percentage of sample OCB as part of their role than for employees who classifying behavior as in-role OCBI 84.6% perceive OCB as beyond their role.” However, this OCBO 72.9% difference is significant for OCBI and OCBO, but OCBT 90.0% not for OCBT. Again, the small number of par- ticipants who classify OCBT as extra-role behav- Table 4 shows mean comparisons both for iors might affect this comparison. OCB and for motives to perform OCB. We As expected, there was little effect of role found support for Hypothesis 2: “Employees perceptions on intrinsic and altruistic motives who perceive OCB as part of their role will per- to perform OCB. The only significant differ- form more of these behaviors than employees ence we found was that employees who perceive who perceive OCB as beyond their role”, only for OCBO-type behaviors as in-role, perform at a the organization-directed dimension (p = .01). higher level of these behaviors than for altru-

Table 4. Mean comparisons for OCB and motivesa

Mean OCB for Mean OCB for p-value for t-student df p-value in-role group extra-role group Levene’s Testb OCB OCBI 4.71 4.58 .08 1.65 297 .10 OCBO 4.64 4.45 .00 2.66 121.55 .01 OCBT 4.51 4.54 .72 -.36 297 .72 Extrinsic OCBI 2.44 1.93 .74 2.55 297 .01 motives OCBO 2.31 1.93 .00 2.55 168.59 .01 OCBT 2.31 1.80 .03 2.53 39.96 .02 Institutional OCBI 2.23 1.79 .12 2.13 297 .03 motives OCBO 2.10 1.80 .01 1.95 172.38 .05 OCBT 2.35 1.95 .32 1.49 297 .14 Intrinsic OCBI 4.75 4.85 .05 -1.04 297 .30 motives OCBO 4.79 4.66 .03 1.68 127.75 .10 OCBT 4.78 4.72 .59 .67 297 .50 Altruistic OCBI 4.72 4.64 .62 .73 297 .47 motives OCBO 4.77 4.61 .02 2.20 133.19 .03 OCBT 4.70 4.70 .44 -.03 297 .98 a Sample sizes are the following: NOCBI-IR=253, NOCBI-ER=46; NOCBO-IR=218, NOCBO-ER=81; NOCBT-IR=269, NOCBT-ER=30 b In cases where F statistic for Levene’s test is significant, homogeneity of variances is not assumed. consejo latinoamericano de escuelas de administración, cladea 9 Role perceptions and motivations to perform organizational citizenship behaviors

istic motives. One explanation for this finding behaviors they want to encourage, or they can could be that employees with higher altruistic look for sources of internal motivation, such as motives are more committed to the organiza- sense of autonomy, meaning, or identification tion due to normative reasons, and therefore with the company. might consider the defense and loyalty to their This study also contributes to the study of company as one of their duties. OCB role perceptions and motives in a differ- ent cultural context. In fact, this might be a 6. Discussion possible cause for the difference in the classifi- cation of OCB dimensions with respect to pre- This study contributes to the growing literature vious studies. Cross-cultural research shows about the importance of employees’ role per- that Latin American nations are more diffuse ceptions and their effects on performance (e.g., than United States in terms of job descrip- Chiaburu, 2007; Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; tions and roles (Trompenaars, 1994). Addi- McAllister et al., 2007; Morrison, 1994; Pond, tionally, Latin American cultures are more Nacoste, Mohr & Rodriguez, 1997; Van Dyne collectivistic than the United States (House et & Ellis, 2004; Van Dyne et al., 2008; Vey & al., 2004). Our results show that almost 85% Campbell, 2004). We analyzed how employees of the participants described OCBI as in-role. in a Chilean sample classify their behaviors in As we discussed before, this might relate to the terms of in-role or extra-role. Additionally, we definition of the self in collectivistic contexts, studied the effect of this classification in their where people view goals of others in their in- reported level of OCB. Finally, we presented a groups as their own goals. This cultural vari- motivational framework and studied the effect able can also affect how motives relate to OCB. of employees’ role perceptions in four differ- In the GLOBE study, House et al. (2004) iden- ent motives to perform OCB. These results go tify two dimensions of collectivism: in-group beyond current literature by adding the study and institutional (Gelfand, Bhawuk, Nishii & of motives and role perceptions, by study- Bechtold, 2004). Whereas the former relates ing separately three dimensions of OCB, and more to family and interpersonal relationships, by conducting the study in a Latin American the latter targets behavior in country. (Brewer & Venaik, 2011). Institutional collec- Literature on OCB and role perceptions had tivism is defined by House and Javidan (2004, previously established that perceiving OCB as p.12) as “the degree to which organizational in-role increases its incidence. Although our and societal institutional practices encourage results in general support that conclusion, they and reward collective distribution of resources show that role perceptions only have an influ- and collective action”. Thus, employees in col- ence on external motivation to perform OCB. lectivistic nations can give different values to In particular, in this study we found that when different rewards than employees in individu- employees are externally motivated to perform alistic nations. In fact, research has shown that OCB, their motivation increases when they motives related to fulfilling obligations and to perceive the behaviors as in-role. However, contributing to other members of the group, when employees are internally motivated to are more important in collectivistic cultures perform OCB, their motivation will not dra- than in individualistic cultures (Gelfand et al., matically change whether they perceive the 2004). In our study, altruistic and institutional behaviors as in-role or as extra-role. We believe motives might be more salient to participant that both researchers and managers can benefit employees than if the same study had been by understanding how motivation to perform done in an individualistic culture. OCB is affected by the employees’ role per- One limitation of our study is that our sam- ceptions. According to these results, in order ple comes from a specific context: supervisors to foster extra-role behaviors in employees, from a retail company in one Latin American managers have two options. They can either nation. Therefore, further studies are needed increase role breadth in order to include the before we can generalize these findings. How-

10 Academia, revista latinoamericana de administración, 48, 2011 Espejo ever, although a limitation, as mentioned pre- expected rewards, or in-role requirements, may viously, the context of the study gives us the allow for the observation of changes in motives opportunity to understand OCB in a different and in citizenship behaviors. Further research culture, where only few studies have been made should also expand and refine the measure- (O’Connell, Doverspike, Norris-Watts & Hat- ments for OCB motives. trup, 2001; Espejo & Cardona, 2004). While the We believe that by providing a map of results could be limited because they are based motives for performing OCB, and by testing the on measures provided by only one source, since effects of role perceptions on these motives, we the main point of this research is to study dif- are contributing to a better understanding of ferences in individual motives due to individual citizenship behaviors. Managers may also ben- perceptions, we believe that self-ratings provide efit from these findings if they want to promote a unique source of data. Recently, Conway and these behaviors. On the one hand, they should Lace (2010) showed that a common method know that by encouraging intrinsic and altruis- does not necessarily inflate relationships and tic motivation they can achieve these behaviors that source selection should be made according from employees with different role perceptions. to the particular research question. On the other hand, if they want to use extrinsic As we mentioned earlier in the paper, since or institutional incentives, these are especially this is a voluntary study, there is a possible important when employees perceive behaviors self-selection bias in respondents to our ques- as part of their role. tionnaire. One particular bias in this research might be that more employees who perceive the action of completing the questionnaire as Alvaro Espejo part of their role and who are willing to per- form OCB could have answered, whereas other Es doctor en Administración de Empresas por employees who do not see this as part of their el IESE School de Barcelona y máster role could have decided not to answer. This bias en Ciencias de la Ingeniería por la Pontificia might have an effect on hypotheses 1 and 2 and Universidad Católica de Chile. Actualmente can help understand the high percentage of se desempeña como profesor de Alineamiento employees who classify citizenship behaviors as Organizacional y Liderazgo en los programas in-role. We believe, however, that this possible de MBA y Doctorado en el School of Business, bias does not affect the other hypotheses; only Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez. Además es actor, reducing the size of the group who perceive the con diplomado en Dramaterapia y dirige cursos behaviors as extra-role. We are confident also destinados a desarrollar habilidades directivas that the high response rate in our study helps usando la improvisación teatral. Su investigación reduce this bias, although it does not prevent se centra en la motivación de las personas por ir it (Bootsma-van der Wiel, van Exel, de Craen, más allá de lo que puede exigirse por contrato. El Gussekloo, Lagaay, Knook & Westendorp, profesor Espejo forma parte de diversas redes de 2002). Finally, the scales for OCBT and motives investigación internacional que estudian dife- for OCBT did not show the expected reliability. rencias entre países en valores, actitudes y com- OCBT also was classified as extra-role by a small portamientos de ejecutivos y trabajadores. percentage of the sample. Therefore, results for OCBT in this study are not as reliable as results References for OCBI and OCBO. Further research should replicate these findings in different cultures, Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward and in case they find differences, look for cul- new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrin- tural variables, such as collectivism, which sic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource may help explain the variations. Experimental Management Review, 3, 185-201. research could also be useful to better figure Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a out the relationship between motives and OCB. social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence A design which changes job characteristics, Erlbaum Associates. consejo latinoamericano de escuelas de administración, cladea 11 Role perceptions and motivations to perform organizational citizenship behaviors

Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression man- method bias in organizational research. Journal of agement: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Business Psychology, 25, 325-334. Management Review, 24, 82-98. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). Exploring organizationally-directed citizenship The other side of the story: Reexamining prevail- behaviour: Reciprocity or It’s my job? Journal of ing assumptions about organizational citizenship Management Studies, 41, 85-106. behavior. Human Resource Management Review, Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation 14, 229-246. and self-determination in human behavior (1st ed.). Bootsma-van der Wiel, A., van Exel, E., de Craen, A. New York: Plenum Press. J. M., Gussekloo, J., Lagaay, A. M., Knook, D. L., & Deutskens, E., De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Ooster- Westendorp, R. G. J. (2002). A high response is not veld, P. (2004). Response rate and response quality essential to prevent selection bias: Results from the of Internet-based surveys: An experimental study. Leiden 85-plus study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiol- Marketing Letters, 15, 21-36. ogy, 55, 1119-1125. Donia, M., Jones, G., & Raja, U. (2010). Do motives Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding matter? Underlying the value of motives underlying the criterion domain to include elements of contex- OCBs. Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting tual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman of theAcademy of Management, Montreal, Canada (Eds.), Personality selection (pp. 71-98). San Fran- (August 2010). cisco: Jossey-Bass. Espejo, A., & Cardona, P. (2004). Organizational citi- Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2011). Individualism–collec- zenship behavior in Iberoamerica: The cross-level tivism in Hofstede and Globe. Journal of Interna- effect of locus of control. Paper presented at the tional Business Studies, 42, 436-445. Workshop on Organizational Citizenship Behav- Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of ior (OCB): Future Challenges in OCB Theory and research instruments. In W. J. Looner & J. W. Berry Research, Eilat, Israel (November, 2004). (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research. Bev- Espejo, A., & Cardona, P. (2005). Motivation to per- erly Hills, CA: Sage. form organizational citizenship behaviors. Paper Cardona, P., & Espejo, A. (2003). The effect of the rat- presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Acad- ing source on organizational citizenship behavior: emy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA A multitrait-multimethod analysis. Paper presented (August 2005). at the 11th Congress of the European Association of Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online Work and Organizational Psychology, Lisbon, Por- surveys. Internet Research, 15, 195-219. tugal (May 2003). Finkelstein, M. A., & Penner, L. A. (2004). Predicting Cardona, P., Lawrence, B., & Bentler, P. M. (2004). The organizational citizenship behavior: Integrating influence of social and work exchange relationships the functional and role identity approaches. Social on organizational citizenship behavior. Group and Behavior and Personality, 32(4), 383-398. Organization Management, 29, 219-247. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Self-determination Cardona, P., Lawrence, B. S., & Espejo, A. (2003). Out- theory as a new framework for understanding orga- come-based theory of work motivation. Paper pre- nizational behavior. Paper presented at the Acad- sented at the 63rd Academy of Management Annual emy of Management, Denver, Colorado. Meeting, Seattle, WA, USA. Gelfand, M., Bhawuk, D., Nishii, L., & Bechtold, D. Chiaburu, D. S. (2007). From interactional justice to (2004). Individualism and collectivism. In R.J. citizenship behaviors: Role enlargement or role dis- House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman & cretion? Social Justice Research, 20, 207-227. V. Gupta (Eds), Culture, leadership, and organiza- Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigat- tions: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 602-653). ing the underlying structure of the citizenship per- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. formance domain. Human Resource Management Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a speci- Review, 10, 25-44. fication error. Econometrica, 47, 153-161. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers Hennessey, B. A., & Zbikowski, S. (1993). Immunizing should expect from authors regarding common children against the negative effects of reward: A

12 Academia, revista latinoamericana de administración, 48, 2011 Espejo

further examination of intrinsic motivation train- Organ, D. W. (2004). The roots of OCB: Theory and ing techniques. Research Journal, 6, 297- research at Indiana University, Paper presented at 308. the Workshop: Future Challenges in OCB Theory Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Com- and Research, Eilat, Israel. paring values, behaviors, institutions, and organi- Parks, J. M., & Kidder, D. L. (1994). “Till death do us zations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, part...”: Changing work relationships in the 1990’s. California: Sage Publications. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., organizational behavior (vol. 1, pp. 111-136). Chich- & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organi- ester, UK: Wiley. zations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Oaks, CA: Sage. Beyond job attitudes: A personality and social psy- House, R. J., & Javidan, M. (2004). Overview of GLOBE. chology perspective on the causes of organizational In R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dor- citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 10, 111- fman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership and 131. organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & 9-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizen- Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizen- ship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical ship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of and empirical literature and suggestions for future affect and . Journal of Applied Psychol- research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563. ogy, 87, 131-142. Pond, S. B., Nacoste, R. W., Mohr, M. F., & Rodriguez, McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Tur- C. M. (1997). The measurement of organizational ban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role perceptions: citizenship behavior: Are we assuming too much? How perceived role breadth, discretion, instru- Journal of , 27, 1527-1544. mentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1200- organizational citizenship behavior: A motiva- 1211. tional analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of 1306-1314. dispositional and situational antecedents in proso- Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Orga- cial organizational behavior: An examination of nizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 655- Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836-844. 663. Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individual- Triandis, H. C. (2002). Generic individualism and col- ism-collectivism as an individual difference predic- lectivism. In M. J. Gannon & K. L. Newman (Eds.), tor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal Culture, motivation, and work behavior. Oxford, of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 127-142. UK: Blackwell. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organiza- Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: tional citizenship behavior: The importance of the Understanding cultural diversity in business. Lon- employee’s perspective. Academy of Management don: Irwin. Journal, 37, 1543-1567. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. O’Connell, M. S., Doverspike, D., Norris-Watts, C., (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In persuit of construct & Hattrup, K. (2001). Predictors of organizational and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied citizenship behavior among Mexican retail sales- waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, people. The International Journal of Organizational 215-285. Analysis, 9, 272-280. Van Dyne, L. & Ellis, B. J. (2004). Job creep: A reac- Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organi- tance theory perspective on organizational citizen- zational citizenship behavior. Research in Organi- ship behavior as overfulfillment of obligations. In zational Behavior, 12, 43-72. J. A.-M. Coyle-Shapiro, L. Shore, M. S. Taylor & L. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship Tetrick (Eds.), The employment relationship: exam- behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Per- ining psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. formance, 10, 85-97. 181-205) . Oxford: Oxford University Press. consejo latinoamericano de escuelas de administración, cladea 13 Role perceptions and motivations to perform organizational citizenship behaviors

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Yun, S., Takeuchi, R., & Liu, W. (2007). Employee Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct self-enhancement motives and redefinition, measurement, and validation. Acad- behaviors: Investigating the moderating effects of emy of Management Journal, 37, 765-802. employee role ambiguity and managerial percep- Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. (2008). In- tions of employee commitment. Journal of Applied role perceptions buffer the negative impact of low Psychology, 92, 745-756. LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 93, 1195-1207. Recepción del artículo: 01/09/2011 Vey, M. A., & Campbell, J. P. (2004). In-role or extra- Envío evaluación a autores: 03/10/2011 role organizational citizenship behavior: Which are Recepción correcciones: 12/10/2011 we measuring? Human Performance, 17, 119-135. Aceptación artículo: 17/10/2011

14 Academia, revista latinoamericana de administración, 48, 2011