Kaitlyn works Monday through Friday, 9-5. Sitting at her desk on Friday afternoon, Kaitlyn glances at the clock. It is 4:30 pm. The end of the workweek is a mere 30 minutes away. Visions of a relaxing weekend begin to creep in. And then, the phone rings. A distraught coworker is calling to ask for a big favor. His kids are really sick, he feels there’s no way he’s going to be able to prepare for an upcoming meeting on Monday, and he’s wondering if Kaitlyn might be able to run it for him. She’s not up-to-date on the agenda, so it is going to take a fair amount of time to prepare. If she agrees to help out, she can kiss her weekend goodbye. And no, there isn’t any direct reward for running the meeting. A thank you, maybe. A complimentary latte, perhaps. But she shouldn’t expect a big bonus in her next check. Kaitlyn is simply being asked to step up to the plate, be a good sport, and take one for the team. Will she agree? How might her answer change if she knew, for sure, that she had another job lined up and was about to leave the organization? In the present article, I address these questions by first introducing the concept oforganizational citizenship behaviors and then summarizing a series of recent studies my colleagues Dishan Kamdar, Denise Daniels, Jane George-Falvy and Blythe Duell and I conducted on this topic.
Going Above and Beyond the Call of Duty
As most readers will agree, the dilemma facing Kaitlyn is not uncommon. Indeed, employees are frequently asked to “step up to the plate”, “be a good sport”, and “take one for the team.” Restated, we are often asked to go “above and beyond the call of duty” at work, with no direct expectation of a reward. Given their positive impact on organizations, organizational psychologists have long been interested in understanding these acts of sacrifice, which they commonly refer to as “organizational citizenship behaviors” (OCBs).
Organ (1988) first defined OCBs as “individual [behaviors] that [are] discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate [promote] the effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). Five commonly studied forms of OCBs include altruism (helping out coworkers), civic virtue (staying up on company policies), conscientiousness (doing an exceptional job in one’s role), courtesy (being kind to coworkers), and sportsmanship (not complaining about little inconveniences in the workplace). In a sense, Kaitlyn is being asked to engage in mix of all of these OCBs at the same time, assuming she agrees to her coworker’s request (altruism), responds to him in a kind fashion (courtesy), does a good job preparing for the meeting (conscientiousness), refreshes herself on company policies (civic virtue), and chooses not to complain about it to her coworkers (sportsmanship).
The Give and Take of OCBs
How do employees think about OCBs? Technically, OCBs are discretionary and not directly rewarded. While this may be true in the short-term, OCBs can result in long-term benefits to both the company and the employee. In fact, one of the most common frameworks for understanding OCBs is based on the notion of mutual rewards via the related processes of social exchange (Blau, 1964) and reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). According to this approach, if an employee thinks she is being treated fairly by her organization, she develops a positive connection to the organization and returns the favor by engaging in OCBs (e.g., Cardona, Lawrence, & Bentler, 2004). This suggests that employees are likely to vary in the extent to which they view OCBs as more discretionary (extra-role) behaviors vs. more expected (in-role) behaviors, based on features of the situation and the employee, and these differing perceptions are likely to influence whether an employee engages in OCBs (e.g., Kamdar, McAllister, & Turban, 2006).
OCBs as Social Dilemmas
One of the challenges associated with motivating employees to engage in OCBs is that, while OCBs may eventually pay off down the line (e.g., via a returned favor), they are unlikely to result in immediate rewards, and in fact, are likely to result in short-term costs (e.g., a lost weekend). This suggests that employees view OCBs as a “social dilemma.” Broadly defined, social dilemmasare situations in which short-term individual and long-term collective interests are at odds (Messick & Brewer, 1983). For example, it would be in Kaitlyn’s own short-term self-interest to turn down the request to help her coworker so she could enjoy her weekend. However, Kaitlyn and her organization would be better off in the long-run if Kaitlyn decided to help.
Social and Temporal Conflicts of Interest
Framing OCBs as social dilemmas helps us to understand the conditions under which employees will be more or less likely to engage in OCBs because it breaks the decision down into two fundamental underlying conflicts of interest. The first conflict of interest underlying all social dilemmas is a social conflict between individual well-being and collective well-being. The second conflict of interest underlying most social dilemmas is a temporal conflict between short-term and long-term interests.
When OCBs are viewed from this perspective, it follows that any factor that increases an employee’s concern with collective well-being (social concerns) and long-term outcomes (temporal concerns) should increase the likelihood that an employee will engage in OCBs. For example, it seems likely that our hypothetical employee Kaitlyn should be more willing to help her coworker out to the extent that she is generally concerned with the well-being of others (e.g., she is high in empathy) and thinks about the long-term consequences of her actions (e.g., tends to be future-oriented). However, recall that Kaitlyn has also lined up another job and will be leaving her company in the near future. This situation is likely to give Kaitlyn a relatively short-time horizon in her organization. If she does help her coworker out, it is unclear whether it will “pay off” in the long-term (e.g., via a returned favor).
Employee Time Horizon
Like Kaitlyn, many employees in today’s economy can expect several career changes over their lifetime. As a result, at any given time, many employees are likely to have adopted a relatively short time horizon within their organizations. In theory, this poses a major dilemma for organizations wishing to encourage OCBs. Indeed, research suggests that people are less likely to cooperate in social dilemmas (Axelrod, 1984) and engage in OCBs (Van Dyne & Ang, 1998) when they have a short-term time horizon within their organizations.
Study Goals and Hypotheses
In an effort to better understand how a short-term time horizon impacts employees’ willingness to engage in OCBs, we conducted several studies involving large samples of MBA students and employees in a large Fortune 500 country in India. Our studies had three goals. First, we sought to determine whether employees actually viewed OCBs as social dilemmas. Second, we evaluated whether employees with a short-term time horizon would be less likely to engage in OCBs. Finally, we examined whether the negative impact of a short-term time horizon would depend on an employee’s level of empathy and/or tendency to base decisions on the future consequences of one’s actions. We hypothesized that a short-term time horizon would lead to a reduction in OCBs among employees who were low in empathy (who presumably help primarily to receive future rewards), but would have little impact on employees who were high in empathy (who tend to help because they are concerned with the other’s well-being). We also hypothesized (somewhat counterintuitively) that a short-term time horizon would lead to a reduction in OCBs among employees who focus on the future consequences of their actions (because these employees would see no future benefit to engaging in OCBs), but would have a less adverse impact on employees who focus on the immediate consequences of their actions.
In-Basket Study
In an effort to generalize our results, we conducted several studies each using a different method for assessing employees’ willingness to engage in OCBs. In our initial studies (Joireman, Daniels, George-Falvy, & Kamdar, 2006), we asked MBA students to respond to an in-basket exercise. Participants were asked to imagine they were a manager in a hypothetical organization, and were presented with a series of 9 in-basket items to which they needed to respond, including
six memos, two formal letters, and a company newsletter. Each item presented three options for action. One option fell below expectations. A second option reflected reasonable behavior. The third option (the OCB) went “above and beyond the call of duty”. The first option required the least amount of time to complete, whereas the third option required the most time to complete. As an example, in one newsletter, employees were encouraged to take time to get to know two new employees. The response options included (a) not spending any time with the new employees, (b) talking with the employees if they happened to bump into them (30 minutes); or (c) scheduling a 30 minute meeting to get to know each employee and see if they need any help getting adjusted (1 hour total). In another memo, an employee is asked to be involved in a trade-show. The response options include (a) not attending; (b) indicating that one’s subordinates will attend (20 minutes to draft a memo); or (c) helping to prepare for the trade-show (1 hour).
Preliminary studies revealed two important findings: First, participants rated the first option as beneficial to the employee in the short-run, but harmful to the organization in the long-run, and they rated the third option as costly to the employee in the short-run, but beneficial to both the employee and the organization in the long-run. This allowed us to conclude that participants viewed the decision as a social dilemma. A second important finding was that participants viewed the third option as an extra-role behavior (i.e., as a behavior that went above and beyond what would be expected as part of the employee’s typical role). This allowed us to conclude that participants viewed the third option as an OCB. Having established that the in-basket exercise reflected a viable measure of OCBs, which were perceived as social dilemmas, we proceeded to evaluate predictors of participants’ willingness to engage in OCBs.
In the primary study, for each in-basket item, participants were asked to choose one of the three options and put it in their “daily calendar.” The catch was that if an employee consistently chose the third option (the OCB), they would need to work late to accommodate all of these OCBs. Two weeks prior to the in-basket exercise, we measured two personality variables, including participant’s level empathy (Davis, 1983) and concern with future consequences (Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). Just prior to the in-basket exercise, we asked half of the participants to imagine they had another job lined up and would be leaving the company in three months (short-term time horizon condition). We told the remaining participants nothing about their time horizon in the organization (long-term time horizon condition).
Results from the primary study were consistent with our hypotheses: First, employees with a short-term time horizon were less likely to engage in OCBs. Second, a short-term time horizon led to a decrease in willingness to engage in OCBs mainly among employees low in empathy and high in concern with future consequences.
Multinational Conglomerate Study
To further evaluate our hypotheses, we next went out into the real-world to solicit responses from employees and their supervisors (Joireman, Kamdar, Daniels, & Duell, 2006). In two closely related studies, we first assessed employee’s level ofempathy and concern with future consequences, as before. We also asked employees to fill out a scale that measured their time horizon within the organization (short-term vs. longer-term). In one study, we then asked employees to self-report how often they engage in a set of OCBs (altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship and voicing opinions). Because self-reports can biased by self-presentation concerns, in another study, we asked supervisors to rate their subordinates’ willingness to engage in these same OCBs.
Results from these studies were consistent with those of the in-basket study. As before, employees viewed the different types of OCBs as social dilemmas involving short-term costs to the employee and long-term benefits to the employee and organization. Second, employees with a short-term time horizon were less likely to engage in OCBs. Finally, a short-term time horizon led to a decrease in OCBs mainly among those employees low in empathy and high in concern with future consequences. In general, these results applied to OCBs directed to co-workers (altruism, courtesy), and OCBs directed toward the organization (civic virtue and conscientiousness).
Conclusions & Implications
It is not uncommon for employees to be asked to go above and beyond the call of duty at work. These organizational citizenship behaviors frequently make important contributions to the well-being of one’s coworkers and/or the organization. One challenge associated with motivating organizational citizenship behaviors is that, while they may eventually lead to long-term benefits, they tend to be costly in the short-run. Assuming an employee anticipates staying within an organization for the long-run, this may not pose an insurmountable problem, as employees may engage in OCBs in an effort to reap the long-term rewards of organizational citizenship behaviors via social exchange and reciprocity. However, if an employee anticipates leaving an organization in the near future, and already has a job lined up, OCBs would seem to lose some of their appeal. What motivates employees to persist in organizational citizenship behaviors despite this short-term horizon? Our results suggest that one important factor is the employee’s pre-existing level of empathy: those employees with a personality high in dispositionalempathy are concerned about others and will help them regardless of whether they plan to leave in the near future or not. Those low in empathy, on the other hand, appear to reduce their involvement in OCBs when facing a short-term time horizon, presumably because they see no future benefits associated with engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors. Interestingly, employees who are concerned with future consequences also show this same tendency (a reduction in organizational citizenship behaviors when faced with a short-term time horizon). While somewhat counterintuitive, this pattern does make sense, because what motivates a person like this to engage in OCBs is presumably the possibility of future returns, and those future returns are unlikely when one plans to leave an organization. Managers wishing to capitalize on these findings would do well to either help employees envision a long-term future within their organization, or, if that is not possible, recruit employees who are high in empathy, employees who are likely to take one for the team, even on their way out the door.
References
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Cardona, P., Lawrence, B. S., Bentler, P. M. (2004). The influence of social and work exchange relationships on organizational citizenship behavior. Group and Organization Management, 29, 219-247.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 165-167.
Joireman, J. A., Daniels, D., George-Falvy, J., & Kamdar, D. (2006). http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00103.x " target="_blank">Organizational citizenship behaviors as a function of empathy, consideration of future consequences, and employee time horizon: An initial exploration using an in-basket simulation of OCBs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2266-2292.
Joireman, J., Kamdar, D., Daniels, D., & Duell, B. (2006). Good citizens to the end? It depends: Empathy and concern with future consequences moderate the impact of a short-term time horizon on OCBs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1307-1320.
Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. J., & Turban, D. B. (2006). "All in a day's work": How follower individual differences and justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 841-855
Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas: A review. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 11-44). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 742-752.
Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 692-703.
