Details:Synthesis is the process of creating a new idea by analyzing multiple disparate concepts or notions to discern the common thematic or connecting principles among them. Synthesis of research is a process learned through time and practice. In this assignment, you will engage in the first parts of the synthesis process: annotating and outlining.General Requirements:Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:Locate the journal articles assigned in the first two modules of this course.This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.Refer to “Preparing Annotated Bibliographies,” located in the Student Success Center, for additional guidance on completing this assignment in the appropriate style.You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.Directions:Provide an annotated bibliography (750-1,000 words total) of three of the assigned journal articles from the first two modules of this course. Include the following for each article:The article citation and persistent link. These are provided for you in the topic materials to paste into the assignment and are not included in the total word count. Be sure to verify the accuracy of the reference formatting as these can change during the insertion process.A written summary of the key concept(s) of the article. Why was the study done? What was the population studied? What did the researcher(s) conclude? What other information about this study do you believe is unique or important to recall? Are there specific statements made by the author that you wish to retain?Construct an outline for a paper that will explain and synthesize the articles you read for this assignment with at least two additional, topically-related, empirical articles that you will select. The paper will require identification of themes common to all of the articles as well as a statement of the conclusions that can be drawn when the articles are taken together as a single entity.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Introduction: The problems and promise of
contemporary leadership theories
Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, U.S.A.
Keywords: leadership; leadership theory; supervision
Recent years have seen a shift in the focus of leadership theories that today emphasize not only the behavior of
leaders but on their relationships with followers. A variety of new leadership theories have emerged, including
authentic, character-based, esthetic, ethical, servant, and spiritual leadership. A common thread that runs throughout
these theories is the emphasis on morals and values, and the treatment of followers can have important effects. In an
employment context, all these theories address how superiors might inspire their subordinates to become active
contributors to their ?rms that go beyond basic job requirements. Some of these models also emphasize ethical
issues in the appropriate use of leader power and how values are important in understanding leader behavior.
This current point/counterpoint exchange has two groups of leadership scholars who take different perspectives
on these new theories. Michael D. Mumford and Yitzhak Fried take a critical view and question the role of ideology
and values in leadership theory and practice. They fault these contemporary theories for focusing on ideology and
suggesting that there is one correct way to lead. They argue that always behaving in ways that generate positive
feelings in subordinates can be counterproductive and, as their title notes, can result in giving them more of what
they want than what they need. This is because leadership is too complex to assume that one set of prescriptions will
be suf?cient and that there can be con?icting demands from the different constituencies leaders must serve. They
conclude that these theories are overly simplistic and are not likely to be helpful in real life leadership settings.
Sean T. Hannah, John, J. Sumanth, Paul Lester, and Fabrice Cavarretta defend these newer genre leadership
theories, expanding Mumford and Frieds discussion to include charismatic and transformational theories. They argue
that these contemporary theories ?ll gaps in the leadership literature by expanding into areas of emotions, inspiration,
and morality. They answer critics of these theories on ?ve issues: (i) normative theories are detached from real leadership situations; (ii) a humanistic approach ignores demands of getting tasks done; (iii) inclusion of morality in leadership
is inappropriate; (iv) emphasizing feelings and needs of followers con?icts with organizational goals; and (v) scales
used to assess leadership are confounded with feelings about the leader.
Taken together, these two papers provide an in-depth discussion of the limitations and potential contributions of
these theories and the research that has and will be conducted to test their propositions. For anyone interested in
contemporary leadership, this exchange provides a balanced overview of the conceptual, methodological, and
practice issues concerning these theories and their application.
Paul E. Spector is distinguished professor and director of the I/O psychology and Occupational Health Psychology
doctoral programs at the University of South Florida. He is Point/Counterpoint editor for Journal of Organizational
Behavior, associate editor for Work & Stress, and is on the editorial board of Journal of Applied Psychology.
*Correspondence to: Paul Spector, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620 U.S.A. E-mail: email@example.com
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 25 February 2014, Accepted 13 March 2014
Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 597 (2014)
Published online 11 April 2014 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1930
Copyright of Journal of Organizational Behavior is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
Journal of Management
2000, Vol. 26, No. 3, 513563
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A
Critical Review of the Theoretical and
Empirical Literature and Suggestions for
Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie, Julie Beth Paine, and Daniel G. Bachrach
The rapid growth of research on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) has resulted in some conceptual confusion about the
nature of the construct, and made it difficult for all but the most avid
readers to keep up with developments in this domain. This paper
critically examines the literature on organizational citizenship behavior
and other, related constructs. More specifically, it: (a) explores the
conceptual similarities and differences between the various forms of
citizenship behavior constructs identified in the literature; (b) summarizes the empirical findings of both the antecedents and consequences of OCBs; and (c) identifies several interesting directions for
future research. © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Over a decade and a half has passed since Dennis Organ and his colleagues
(cf. Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) first coined the term
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCBs). Drawing on Chester Barnards
concept (Barnard, 1938) of the willingness to cooperate, and Daniel Katzs
(Katz, 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1966, 1978) distinction between dependable role
performance and innovative and spontaneous behaviors, Organ (1988: 4) defined organizational citizenship behaviors 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. By
discretionary, we mean that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the
role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the persons
employment contract with the organization; the behavior is rather a matter of
personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable.
Direct all correspondence to: Philip M. Podsakoff, Department of Management, Kelley School of Business,
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405; Phone: 812-855-9209.
Copyright © 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc. 0149-2063
P.M. PODSAKOFF, S.B. MACKENZIE, J.B. PAINE, AND D.G. BACHRACH
Although the topic of OCBs initially did not have a very substantial impact
on the field, interest in it and related concepts, such as extra-role behavior (cf. Van
Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995), prosocial organizational behaviors (cf. Brief &
Motowidlo, 1986; George, 1990, 1991; George & Bettenhausen, 1990; OReilly
& Chatman, 1986), organizational spontaneity (cf. George & Brief, 1992; George
& Jones, 1997), and contextual performance (cf. Borman & Motowidlo, 1993,
1997; Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994), has
increased dramatically during the past few years. Indeed, as indicated in Figure 1,
while only 13 papers were published on these topics during the six-year period
from 1983 to 1988, more than 122 papers (almost a ten-fold increase) have been
published on these topics during the comparable six-year period from 1993 to
1998. Moreover, during this time period, interest in citizenship-like behaviors
expanded from the field of organizational behavior to a variety of different
domains and disciplines, including human resource management (cf. Borman &
Motowidlo, 1993; Murphy & Shiarella, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui,
1993), marketing (cf. Bettencourt & Brown, 1997; Kelley & Hoffman, 1997;
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Ahearne, 1998;
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Paine, 1999; Netemeyer, Bowles, MacKee, & McMur-
Figure 1. Yearly and Cumulative Publications on Citizenship Behavior and
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
A REVIEW OF THE OCB LITERATURE
rian, 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), hospital and health administration
(cf. Bolon, 1997; Organ, 1990b), community psychology (cf. Burroughs & Eby,
1998), industrial and labor law (cf. Cappelli & Rogovsky, 1998), strategic
management (cf. Kim & Mauborgne, 1993, 1998), international management (cf.
Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998; Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997; Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ,
1990; Hui, Law, & Chen, 1999; Kim & Mauborgne, 1996), military psychology
(cf. Deluga, 1995), economics (cf. Tomer, 1998), and leadership (cf. Podsakoff &
MacKenzie, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996a, 1996b; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990).
Although the rapid growth in theory and research undoubtedly has been
gratifying to those interested in organizational citizenship behavior, it also has
produced some unfortunate consequences. For example, Van Dyne et al. (1995)
have noted that much of the empirical research on organizational citizenship
behavior, and the related concepts of prosocial organizational behavior and
organizational spontaneity, has focused more on what Schwab (1980) called
substantive validity, rather than on construct validity. That is, the literature has
focused more on understanding the relationships between organizational citizenship and other constructs, rather than carefully defining the nature of citizenship
behavior itself. Following Schwab (1980), Van Dyne et al. (1995) warned that
unless additional attention is directed toward more comprehensive theoretical
explications of the constructs and their measures, we are in danger of developing
a stream of literature that may prove of little value to the field in the long run.
Related to the above, the proliferation of research on OCBs and other forms
of extra-role behavior has resulted in a lack of recognition of some of the
similarities and differences in some of these constructs. A careful reading of the
conceptual definitions of organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988),
prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), civic organizational behavior (Graham, 1991), organizational spontaneity (George & Brief,
1992; George & Jones, 1997), and contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) suggests that there are some important differences between these
constructs, although it is not uncommon to see these differences glossed over, if
not completely ignored. The danger in not recognizing the differences in these
constructs is that the same construct may have conflicting conceptual connotations
for different people. On the other hand, the literature also indicates that there are
a number of occasions where essentially the same idea or concept has been given
different labels by different researchers. The problem with this practice is that it
becomes difficult to see the overall patterns that exist in the research literature.
Furthermore, even though the dramatic growth of OCB research into other
related management domains, such as human resources management, industrial
and labor relations, strategic management, international business, and leadership,
is healthy for research in this area, one unfortunate outcome of this diversification
is that it has become increasingly difficult for all but the most avid readers to keep
up with developments in the literature. Moreover, as interest in OCBs continues
to expand to other disciplines (e.g., marketing, hospital and health administration,
community psychology, economics, and military psychology) it will become even
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
P.M. PODSAKOFF, S.B. MACKENZIE, J.B. PAINE, AND D.G. BACHRACH
more difficult to keep up with the theoretical and empirical developments in this
area, and to assimilate the literature into a coherent whole.
Within the context of the above discussion, the purpose of this paper is to
summarize and review the extant literature on organizational citizenship behavior
(and other, related constructs). The first section of the paper will explore some of
the conceptual similarities and differences between the various forms of citizenship behavior constructs that have been identified in the literature. The next
section of the paper will provide a summary of the variables that have been
identified as potential antecedents to OCBs. This is perhaps the most extensively
researched area in this literature, and several patterns of relationships emerge from
our summary that should prove of interest to those focusing their efforts on this
particular research area. Next, we will turn our attention to the consequences of
organizational citizenship behavior. Research in this area is somewhat more
recent than research on the antecedents of OCBs, and focuses primarily on the
effects that citizenship behaviors have on managerial evaluations of performance.
However, there are several recent developments in this area that should prove of
value to those who are interested in the determinants of organization success as
well. In the final section of the paper, we will focus our attention on identifying
those future research directions that appear to have particular promise for making
contributions to the field. In this section we will discuss conceptual/theoretical
issues in need of future research, additional antecedents and consequences that
might be of interest, citizenship behaviors in cross-cultural contexts, and methodological issues.
Types of Citizenship Behavior
Despite the growing interest in citizenship-like behaviors, a review of the
literature in this area reveals a lack of consensus about the dimensionality of this
construct. Indeed, our examination of the literature indicated that almost 30
potentially different forms of citizenship behavior have been identified. The
conceptual definitions of these constructs are presented in Table 1. However, it is
clear from the table that there is a great deal of conceptual overlap between the
constructs. The table captures this by organizing them into seven common themes
or dimensions: (1) Helping Behavior, (2) Sportsmanship, (3) Organizational
Loyalty, (4) Organizational Compliance, (5) Individual Initiative, (6) Civic Virtue, and (7) Self Development.
Helping behavior has been identified as an important form of citizenship
behavior by virtually everyone who has worked in this area (cf. Borman &
Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; George & Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997; Graham,
1989; Organ, 1988, 1990a, 1990b; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Van Scotter &
Motowidlo, 1996; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Conceptually, helping behavior
involves voluntarily helping others with, or preventing the occurrence of, workrelated problems. The first part of this definition (helping others with work-related
problems) includes Organs altruism, peacemaking, and cheerleading dimensions
(Organ, 1988, 1990b); Grahams interpersonal helping (Graham, 1989); Williams
and Andersons OCB-I (Williams & Anderson, 1991); Van Scotter and MotowJOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
A REVIEW OF THE OCB LITERATURE
idlos interpersonal facilitation (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1986); and the helping
others constructs from George and Brief (1992) and George and Jones (1997). The
second part of the definition captures Organs (1988, 1990b) notion of courtesy,
which involves helping others by taking steps to prevent the creation of problems
for coworkers. Empirical research (MacKenzie et al., 1993; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 1999; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff, Ahearne, &
MacKenzie, 1997) has generally confirmed the fact that all of these various forms
of helping behavior load on a single factor.
Sportsmanship is a form of citizenship behavior that has received much less
attention in the literature. Organ (1990b: 96) has defined sportsmanship as a
willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work
without complaining. However, his definition seems somewhat narrower than the
label of this construct would imply. For example, in our opinion good sports are
people who not only do not complain when they are inconvenienced by others, but
also maintain a positive attitude even when things do not go their way, are not
offended when others do not follow their suggestions, are willing to sacrifice their
personal interest for the good of the work group, and do not take the rejection of
their ideas personally. Empirical research (cf. MacKenzie et al., 1993; MacKenzie
et al., 1999) that has included this construct in the context of other forms of
citizenship behavior has shown it to be distinct from them, and to have somewhat
different antecedents (cf. Podsakoff et al., 1996b; Podsakoff et al., 1990) and
consequences (Podsakoff et al., 1997; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Walz &
Organizational loyalty consists of loyal boosterism and organizational loyalty (Graham, 1989, 1991), spreading goodwill and protecting the organization
(George & Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997), and the endorsing, supporting,
and defending organizational objectives construct (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993,
1997). Essentially, organizational loyalty entails promoting the organization to
outsiders, protecting and defending it against external threats, and remaining
committed to it even under adverse conditions. Preliminary research by Moorman
and Blakely (1995) has indicated that this dimension is distinct from several other
forms of citizenship behavior, although a confirmatory factor analysis in a
follow-up study conducted by Moorman, Blakely, and Niehoff (1998) failed to
confirm this. Thus, additional work on these scales appears to be warranted.
As indicated in Table 1, organizational compliance has a long tradition of
research in the citizenship behavior area. This dimension has been called generalized compliance by Smith et al. (1983); organizational obedience by Graham
(1991); OCB-O by Williams and Anderson (1991); and following organizational
rules and procedures by Borman and Motowidlo (1993); and contains some
aspects of Van Scotter and Motowidlos job dedication construct (Van Scotter &
Motowidlo, 1996). This dimension appears to capture a persons internalization
and acceptance of the organizations rules, regulations, and procedures, which
results in a scrupulous adherence to them, even when no one observes or monitors
compliance. The reason that this behavior is regarded as a form of citizenship
behavior is that even though everyone is expected to obey company regulations,
rules, and procedures at all times, many employees simply do not. Therefore, an
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 26, NO. 3, 2000
P.M. PODSAKOFF, S.B. MACKENZIE, J.B. PAINE, AND D.G. BACHRACH
Table 1. Summary of Employee In-Role and
& Near (1983)
behavior that is directly
and intentionally aimed
at helping a specific
person in face-to-face
orienting new people,
assisting someone with
a heavy workload)
actions that help another
person with a work
new hire on how to use
equipment, helping a coworker catch up with a
backlog of work, fetching
materials that a colleague
needs and cannot procure
on his own (pg. 96).
of those foresightful
gestures that help
someone else prevent a
with people before
committing to actions that
will affect them, providing
advance notice to
someone who needs to
know to schedule work
that help to prevent,
resolve or mitigate
interpersonal conflict (pg.
and gestures of
Purchase answer to see full
Why Work with Us
Top Quality and Well-Researched Papers
We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.
Professional and Experienced Academic Writers
We have a team of professional writers with experience in academic and business writing. Many are native speakers and able to perform any task for which you need help.
Free Unlimited Revisions
If you think we missed something, send your order for a free revision. You have 10 days to submit the order for review after you have received the final document. You can do this yourself after logging into your personal account or by contacting our support.
Prompt Delivery and 100% Money-Back-Guarantee
All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.
Original & Confidential
We use several writing tools checks to ensure that all documents you receive are free from plagiarism. Our editors carefully review all quotations in the text. We also promise maximum confidentiality in all of our services.
24/7 Customer Support
Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.
Try it now!
How it works?
Follow these simple steps to get your paper done
Place your order
Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.
Proceed with the payment
Choose the payment system that suits you most.
Receive the final file
Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.
No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.
No matter what kind of academic paper you need and how urgent you need it, you are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper at an affordable price. We take care of all your paper needs and give a 24/7 customer care support system.
Admission Essays & Business Writing Help
An admission essay is an essay or other written statement by a candidate, often a potential student enrolling in a college, university, or graduate school. You can be rest assurred that through our service we will write the best admission essay for you.
Our academic writers and editors make the necessary changes to your paper so that it is polished. We also format your document by correctly quoting the sources and creating reference lists in the formats APA, Harvard, MLA, Chicago / Turabian.
If you think your paper could be improved, you can request a review. In this case, your paper will be checked by the writer or assigned to an editor. You can use this option as many times as you see fit. This is free because we want you to be completely satisfied with the service offered.