Post your analysis of three aspects of motivation

ashe.a

Workmotivationandorganizationalcitizenshipbehaviors.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Post your analysis of three aspects of motivation

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com • DOI:10.1002/jls.20202 2323

This study tested the relationship between employees’ sources of work motivation and their display

of organizational citizenship behaviors. Two hundred thirty-nine employees from 38 locations of four

companies in the agricultural industry completed the Motivation Sources Inventory and were rated

by their leaders in organizational citizenship behaviors. Results showed significant positive relation-

ships between individuals’ self-concept internal motivations and organizational citizenship behav-

iors. Results also showed significant negative relationships between instrumental and self-concept

external motivations and organizational citizenship behaviors. A hierarchical regression with each of

the significant covariates accounted for 12% of the total variance in organizational citizenship be-

havior. These results indicate that employees’ sources of motivation offer some explanation of their

organizational citizenship behaviors. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

W O R K M O T I V A T I O N A N D

O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L

C I T I Z E N S H I P B E H A V I O R S

A Field Study

JOHN E. BARBUTO JR. AND JOANA S. P. STORY

Introduction Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and its ef- fects on individual and organizational performance has been the subject of extensive research over the past 25 years (Bateman & Organ, 1983; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; O’Brien & Allen, 2008). Organizational citizenship behaviors are widely considered positive behaviors, but their antecedents are less known. Those few studies that have examined antecedents have tested characteristics

such as conscientiousness (Organ & Lingl, 1995), agree- ableness (Neuman & Kickul, 1998), need for achieve- ment (Neuman & Kickul, 1998), organizational-based self-esteem (Tang & Ibrahim, 1998), emotional intelli- gence (Carmeli & Josman, 2006), and motives (Finkelstein, 2006). Organ (1997) called for increased research of the predictors of OCB, specifying that em- ployee motives may offer empirical explanation of the phenomenon. Because employees’ motives may guide

jls20202.qxd 5/17/11 10:01 AM Page 23

24 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls

to studies of personality (Organ, 1990, 1994; Organ & Lingl, 1995; Penner et al., 1997), job satisfaction (Moorman, 1993), employee attitudes (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Bommer, 1996), employee role perceptions (Podsakoff et al., 1996), procedural justice (Aquino, 1995; Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997; Schappe, 1998; Skarlicki & Latham, 1996), leadership characteristics (Deluga, 1994, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996), interview styles (Latham & Skarlicki, 1995), psychological capital (Zhong, 2007), locus of control (Barbuto & Bugenhagen, 2006), and motivation theories (Barbuto et al., 2003; Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; Kemery, Bedeian, & Zacur, 1996; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Tang & Ibrahim, 1998).

Organ (1994) used the Big Five personality taxonomy in an unsuccessful attempt to predict OCB and con- cluded “the possible limitation with measures based on the Big Five is that they [personality dimensions] have more to do with temperament than motives” (p. 475).

Kemery et al. (1996) examined expectancy theory of motivation to predict organizational citizenship behav- iors. Results supported the decision-making process ex- plicated by expectancy theory and demonstrated some shared variance with OCB, which contributed signifi- cantly to understanding the motivation process of OCB. However, expectancy theory is a process-based model, so the content (sources) of motivation was not tested.

Tang and Ibrahim (1998) examined the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic antecedents of OCB for 155 American and 378 Middle Eastern workers and re- ported that organization-based self-esteem, need for achievement, and intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction were related to OCB altruism. However, because moti- vation was examined using an “à la carte” approach, re- sults were difficult to interpret collectively. A suitable content-based motivation theory needs to be tested with organizational citizenship behaviors using stronger psy- chometric and design properties.

Penner and colleagues (Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; Rioux & Penner, 2001) identified three motives for OCB. Organizational concern motives were related to an individual’s desire to help the organization that stems from pride and organizational identification. Prosocial values motives were related to an individual’s desire to help peers and be socially accepted. Impression manage- ment motives were related to an individual’s desire to be perceived as helpful in order to acquire or keep certain

their behaviors, their motives may also guide their dis- cretionary, nontask behaviors. While some studies have examined motives as a predictor of OCB, content the- ories of work motivation have not been researched, ex- cept for one study (Barbuto, Brown, Wheeler, & Wilhite, 2003).

Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999) proposed an integrative typology of work motivation, incorporating self-concept-based processes. Barbuto and Scholl (1998, 1999) operationalized this typology and used it to pre- dict behavior of leaders. Subsequent work used the in- ventory to predict influence tactics and transformational leadership (Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2000, 2002). Most studies of work motivation have focused on supervisory behaviors, so using it to predict employee behavior is a necessary progression. Barbuto et al. (2003) used the taxonomy in a preliminary examination of OCB, but findings were limited due to sample size and psycho- metric issues. The modest results reported required replication with a larger sample size and an updated work motivation measure. This article tests the relation- ship between employees’ sources of motivation and their organizational citizenship behaviors.

Motivation and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

A N T E C E D E N T S O F O C B

Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) introduced OCB as discretionary individual behavior not directly or explic- itly recognized by the formal reward system, which, in the aggregate, promoted the effective functioning of the organization. This concept was similar to Katz and Kahn’s (1978) description of extra-role performance and shared some basic tenets with notions of perform- ance beyond expectations, as described in the transfor- mational leadership literature (see Bass, 1990).

Seminal research conducted testing the antecedents of OCB reported that job satisfaction was the best pre- dictor (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983). However, many scholars have argued that job satisfac- tion was too broad of a construct for the accurate predic- tion of OCB (Deluga, 1994, 1995; Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997). The search for other reliable pre- dictors of organizational citizenship behaviors has led

jls20202.qxd 5/17/11 10:01 AM Page 24

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls 25

rewards. Organizational concern and prosocial values motives correlated with OCB whereas impression man- agement motives showed differing results. Although their research moved the field further and generated new dialogue, the motives used did not incorporate es- tablished content theories of work motivation.

Barbuto et al. (2003) examined a content-based mo- tivation theory and found several significant relation- ships between employees’ specific sources of motivation and their use of OCBs. They called for more research recommending a larger sample size and stronger psy- chometrics.

Becker and O’Hair (2007) investigated a relationship between Machiavellianism and OCB. Machiavellian- ism was defined as a predisposition toward manipulative behavior. Results reported a negative relationship be- tween Machiavellianism and OCB and organizational concern and prosocial values motives, and a positive re- lationship between Machiavellianism and impression management motives.

S O U RC E S O F W O R K M OT I VAT I O N

Most content-based motivation theories are based on Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs: physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization. Empirical work has generally not supported any of the major tenets of Maslow’s needs (see Alderfer, 1969). The most accepted and applied taxonomy of work-related motivation is the trichotomy developed and operationalized by McClelland (1961, 1985). Despite its general acceptance and use, the trichotomy and its measures (TAT) were widely crit- icized on the basis of both theoretical and measurement issues (see Barbuto & Scholl, 1998; Harrell & Stahl, 1981). McClelland’s three needs—power, affiliation, and achievement—do not include other salient work motives, such as task enjoyment and adherence to prin- ciples and values. Subsequent research found that these missing aspects of motivation offer predicting value (Barbuto et al., 2000, 2002).

Leonard et al. (1999) drew from existing literature and proposed an integrative typology of motivation consisting of five sources: intrinsic process, instrumental, self-concept external, self-concept internal, and goal inter- nalization. This typology was operationalized with sub- scales to measure the five sources of motivation (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998) and used to predict leaders’

influencing behaviors (Barbuto & Scholl, 1999; Barbuto et al., 2002) and leaders’ transformational lead- ership behaviors (Barbuto et al., 2000). The meta- theory was used in a conceptual framework discerning followership behavior and compliance (Barbuto, 2000). The Motivation Sources Inventory better predicted both influence tactics and transformational leadership than did McClelland’s trichotomy of needs (Barbuto et al., 2000, 2002).

Intrinsic Process Motivation

Intrinsic process motivation is derived from the sheer enjoyment of performing a task where the work itself acted as the incentive, because workers enjoyed what they were doing (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). This mo- tive also has been articulated as intrinsic motivation to obtain task pleasure (Deci, 1975) and intrinsic task mo- tivation devoid of any external controls or rewards (Staw, 1976). This motive differs from the classic in- trinsic or internal motivation seen in the literature; in- trinsic process motivation was derived from immediate internal gratification, but classic definitions of intrin- sic motives described internal challenge and achieve- ment outcomes (Deci).

Instrumental Motivation

Instrumental motivation was derived from tangible re- wards. Instrumental motivation integrated Etzioni’s (1961) alienative and calculative involvement, Barnard’s (1938) exchange theory, and Katz and Kahn’s (1978) legal compliance and external rewards. Instrumental mo- tivation was distinguished from the classic extrinsic or external motivation as this motive was derived from tan- gible external rewards, whereas extrinsic motivation de- pended upon social rewards like praise and public recognition.

Self-Concept External Motivation

Self-concept external motivation is derived from one’s desire for affirmation of traits, competencies, and values (Leonard et al., 1999). The ideal self was adopted from role expectations of reference groups. It was character- ized by seeking to satisfy reference group members, first to gain acceptance, and then status. This source of mo- tivation was similar to Etzioni’s (1961) social moral in- volvement; extrinsic interpersonal motivation described

jls20202.qxd 5/17/11 10:01 AM Page 25

26 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls

method variance due to single-source bias, which may have inflated the relationships. Other research also re- ported significant relationships between sources of mo- tivation and leaders’ behaviors (Barbuto & Scholl, 1999; Barbuto et al., 2000). These studies reported sig- nificant relationships among sources of motivation and leader-used influence tactics, transformational leader- ship behaviors, and follower compliance. The magni- tude of these studies ranged from 3% to 12% of explained variance. Allen and Rush (1998) reported that leaders relied on their perceptions of followers’ motives to rate employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors. Thus, it is expected that employee’s sources of motivation will have a significant relationship with their OCBs.

Many scholars considered OCB to be composed of conceptually distinct behavioral dimensions. However, a meta-analysis reported that the OCBs conceptualized by Organ (1998) were highly correlated to one another and that there was no apparent variation in relation- ships with the most popular set of antecedents of OCB (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). Futhermore, LePine et al. (2002) suggested that the score of OCB would be the aggregate score of the behavioral activities measured.

Individuals high in intrinsic process motivation partic- ipate in activities they enjoy and that also create pleas- ant working environments. On the surface, workers seeking enjoyable work conditions are more likely to assist others and create a helping work climate. How- ever, this logic narrowly assumes that workers motivated by intrinsic process find organizational citizenship be- haviors “fun.” No research or conceptual representation of OCB leads to an anticipated relationship between intrinsic process motivation and OCB (no hypothesis).

Individuals high in instrumental motivation are likely to be enticed to participate in formally rewarded activ- ities. They typically perform tasks and demonstrate be- haviors to gain tangible rewards such as pay increases, promotions, and other added benefits (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). Since organizational citizenship behav- iors are not formally rewarded, it can be expected that instrumental motivation will have a negative relation- ship with organizational citizenship behaviors. How- ever, Organ (1997) and others have debated the degree to which rewards motivate OCB performance. Research has suggested that employees use even indirect and

by Deci (1975) and Staw (1976); and Barnard’s (1938) social inducements, conformity to group attitudes, and communion. Classic articulations of extrinsic motiva- tion included social rewards or social exchanges in its framework (Deci).

Self-Concept Internal Motivation

Self-concept internal motivation was derived from one’s desire to satisfy and reinforce his or her self perception of traits, competencies, and values (Leonard et al., 1999). Those motivated in this way set internal stan- dards for traits, competencies, and values that become the basis for the ideal self. This motive was operational in individuals who are motivated to engage in behav- iors that reinforce these personal standards and later achieve higher levels of competency. It has been de- scribed in other works as intrinsic motivation to over- come challenges (Deci, 1975) and as personal achievement (Staw, 1976).

Goal Internalization Motivation

Goal internalization motivation was derived from a need to believe in the cause or purpose of the organiza- tion (Leonard et al., 1999). It is different from the pre- vious four sources because it represents the absence of self-interest (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). However, high goal internalization does not necessarily mean that an individual agrees with an organization’s mission. Goal internalization described the relative importance of the cause or mission, but not the extent to which value con- gruence existed.

M OT I VAT I O N A N D O RG A N I Z AT I O N A L C I T I Z E N S H I P B E H AV I O R

Researchers have suggested that an individual’s motiva- tion was significantly related to his or her organizational citizenship behaviors (Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Tang & Ibrahim, 1998). Tang and Ibrahim (1998) noted statistically significant rela- tionships between achievement motivation and organi- zational citizenship behavior. Penner and colleagues (Finkelstein & Penner; Rioux & Penner) reported sta- tistically significant relationships between organizational concern and prosocial values motives and OCB. How- ever, the strong correlations reported in the above men- tioned studies may have been subjected to common

jls20202.qxd 5/17/11 10:01 AM Page 26

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls 27

informal beliefs about future rewards in their decisions to engage in certain organizational citizenship behav- iors. Thus, OCBs could be considered in larger con- texts, such as performance reviews, future raises, or other settings in which reward decisions are made. However, Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999) conducted a meta-analysis examining the effects of extrinsic re- wards on intrinsic motivation. They reported that tan- gible rewards significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation. Torlak and Koc (2007) reported that materialistic attitude is negatively related to OCB. Furthermore, Barbuto et al. (2003) found a small neg- ative relationship between instrumental motivation and OCB. Given the discussion and results of the research described earlier, a small negative relationship between instrumental motivation and OCB is expected.

Hypothesis 1: Employees’ instrumental motivation

will be negatively related to their organizational citi-

zenship behaviors.

Individuals high in self-concept external motivation pursue activities likely to result in external attribution of their traits, competencies, and values. In earlier work, Barbuto and Scholl (1998) suggested similarities be- tween self-concept external motivation and McClelland’s (1961) need for affiliation. Tang and Ibrahim (1998) found no relationship between employees’ need for af- filiation and organizational citizenship behaviors. Barbuto et al. (2003) found a significant negative rela- tionship between self-concept external motivation and OCB, but they were cautious in their interpretation be- cause of statistical power issues. A negative relationship could be expected between self-concept external and OCB because this source requires some element of so- cial reward or recognition for employees’ efforts; OCBs are not formally rewarded by leaders or organizations. However, it could be reasoned that because this motive is associated with soliciting positive feedback and ac- ceptance from others, helping others on the job may re- sult from this motive. Bolino, Turnley, and Niehoff (2004) argued that OCBs may be self-serving behav- iors because of the positive attributions and social re- wards that are elicited from OCB. However, no studies have established that social recognition or social rewards are in place for those engaging in OCBs. The discus- sion and cited prior research informs expectations for a

small negative relationship between employees’ self- concept external motivation and organizational citizen- ship behaviors.

Hypothesis 2: Employees’ self-concept external mo-

tivation will be negatively related to their organiza-

tional citizenship behaviors.

Individuals high in self-concept internal motivation are motivated to meet personal standards and pursue activ- ities requiring their unique skills. When persons engage in behavior consistent with their self-concept, they are more likely to hold themselves to a high standard of performance. If self-imposed standards reflect a strong work ethic, it would follow that activities on the job that help others or go beyond the adequate roles are more likely to occur among individuals with self- concept internal motivation. Conscientiousness is con- sidered to be the best predictor of OCB among the Big Five personality dimensions (Organ, 1994). Individuals who score high in conscientiousness are considered re- liable, self-disciplined, and dependable (Barrick & Mount, 1991). These are also characteristics that indi- viduals who score high in self-concept internal motiva- tion would be likely to have. Barbuto and Scholl (1998) suggested similarities between self-concept internal mo- tivation and need for achievement. Neuman and Kickul (1998) found a positive significant relationship between value for achievement and five types of OCB. Tang and Ibrahim (1998) found a positive significant relationship between OCB and achievement motivation. A positive relationship between employees’ self-concept internal motivation and their exhibition of organizational citi- zenship behavior is expected.

Hypothesis 3: Employees’ self-concept internal mo-

tivation will be positively related to their organizational

citizenship behaviors.

Individuals high in goal internalization emphasize principles and values and are more likely to seek congru- ence with organizational goals and missions. Finkelstein and Penner (2004) reported that OCB is strongly re- lated to motives such as organizational concern and prosocial values. Tang and Ibrahim (1998) found orga- nizational citizenship behavior to be related to intrinsic satisfaction (described similarly in concept to both self- concept internal and goal internalization motivation).

jls20202.qxd 5/17/11 10:01 AM Page 27

28 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls

M E A S U R E S

Sources of Motivation

The Motivation Sources Inventory (MSI; Barbuto, 2004) was used to measure each employee’s five sources of motivation. The inventory consists of five six-item subscales measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale. An earlier version of this instrument has been used to predict leader influence tactics (Barbuto & Scholl, 1999) and transformational leadership behaviors (Barbuto et al., 2000). Sample items include: for intrin- sic process motivation, “I only like to do things that are fun”; for instrumental motivation, “Job requirements will determine how hard I will work”; for self-concept external motivation, “It is important that others approve of my behavior”; for self-concept internal motivation, “Decisions I make will reflect high standards that I set for myself ”; and for goal internalization motivation, “I would not work for a company if I didn’t agree with its mission.” In this study, the MSI produced reliability co- efficient ranging from 0.71 to 0.91 (see Table 1).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

OCBs were measured using a modified version of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior instrument (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Modifications of this instrument have been used frequently and deemed nec- essary because the construct requires contextual exam- ination (Pond, Nacoste, Mohr, & Rodriguez, 1997). Minor modifications were made to create the context

In their work, intrinsic satisfaction measured the extent to which deeply held values were satisfied; this differs from goal internalization, which measures only the ex- tent to which these values and principles are sources of motivation for individuals. Finkelstein and Penner re- ported that organizational concern motives (desire to help the organization that stems from pride and identi- fication that the individual has towards the organiza- tion) was positively related with OCBs. Thus, a small positive relationship between goal-internalized motiva- tion and organizational citizenship behaviors is ex- pected.

Hypothesis 4: Employees’ goal-internalized motiva-

tion will be positively related to their organizational

citizenship behaviors.

Methods

S U B J E C T S

The data for this analysis were collected from 239 em- ployees and their leaders from 38 branches of four busi- nesses in the agricultural industry in Nebraska. Seventy-six percent of the employees were men; aver- age tenure with the cooperatives exceeded seven years, and turnover rates were less than 5%. All were high school graduates, and a small percentage (19%) had earned college degrees. The average annual salary of em- ployees was $36,000. The sample could be best charac- terized as working middle class.

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Scale Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations (N � 239)

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. OCB 18.62 3.32 (0.91)

2. Intrinsic Process 22.92 5.41 �0.08 (0.76)

3. Instrumental 23.41 5.22 �0.19b 0.54b (0.71)

4. SCE 20.74 5.15 �0.13a 0.40b 0.54b (0.74)

5. SCI 27.03 4.55 0.26b 0.07 0.05 0.18a (0.86)

6. Goal Internal 19.46 5.89 0.09 0.51b 0.38b 0.35b 0.31b (0.73)

7. Gender (male) 0.76 0.40 �0.05 �0.00 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.01

Note: p � 0.05a, p � 0.01b (two-tailed test). SCE � Self-Concept External; SCI � Self-Concept Internal; Goal Internal � Goal Internalization.

jls20202.qxd 5/17/11 10:01 AM Page 28

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls 29

for workers in the sampled industry, which was agricul- turally based. These modifications included surveying via structured phone interviews. Past studies in the orga- nizational citizenship behavior literature have used adap- tations of Smith et al. (1983) and have been judged reliable and valid (Aquino, 1995; Schappe, 1998; Tang & Ibrahim, 1998). Similar to Schappe’s (1998) measure- ment of OCB, this study included the following six items: “(this person) helps others who have been absent catch up”; “(this person) meets work deadlines no mat- ter what it takes”; “(this person) performs more than just the required tasks at work”; “(this person) is absent from work only when absolutely necessary”; “(this person) as- sists others when they have heavy workloads”; “(this per- son) takes on greater responsibilities than colleagues while at work.” The six questions were scored using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 4 (1 � strongly dis- agree, 2 � disagree, 3 � agree, 4 � strongly agree) and items were parceled (LePine et al., 2002). This produced a reliability coefficient of 0.91.

P RO C E D U R E S

Cooperative leaders distributed the MSI to employees, and data were collected in person by the first author. Participation in the research was voluntary, but organ- izations provided an incentive to participate, allowing respondents to attend a professional presentation about the five sources of motivation at an off-site location ap- proximately three weeks after the data were collected. Anonymity was protected by having each employee re- turn the inventory directly to the first author. A re- sponse rate of 73% was achieved, which may be attributed to the professional development opportunity.

Data for the employees’ organizational citizenship be- haviors were collected from their leaders via structured phone interviews. A structured script was used to en- sure uniformity of the data collection procedures. The researchers contacted the supervisor of each employee who completed the MSI to schedule a time to conduct the interview. At the scheduled time, the interviewer phoned the supervisor and asked him or her to assess the degree to which that employee exhibited organiza- tional citizenship behaviors.

Leaders were guaranteed full confidentiality and were encouraged to ask questions and add comments. Re- search procedures were approved in collaboration with

the Institutional Review Board to ensure the fair treatment of human subjects. An executive summary of this study was provided for the executive board members of the com- panies who had granted permission to conduct the study. No individual scores were shared with any leaders.

Analysis and Results

R E S U LT S O F S I M P L E S TAT I S T I C S A N D R E G R E S S I O N A N A LY S I S

The testing of hypotheses 1–4 revealed some relation- ships. No relationships between intrinsic process moti- vation and organizational citizenship behaviors were found. Significant negative correlation was found between employees’ instrumental motivation and OCB (r � 0.19, p � 0.01) (H1). Self-concept external motiva- tion was negatively related to OCB (r � �0.13, p � 0.05) (H2). Self-concept internal motivation was positively re- lated to OCB-total (r � 0.26, p � 0.05) (H3). Goal internalization was not related to organizational citizen- ship behavior (H4).

While many of the hypothesized relationships were sup- ported by significant relationships in the predicted direc- tion, generally these relationships were small. The largest effect for OCB occurred in relation to self-concept internal motivation, with over 5% of explained variance. The estimated statistical power of these relationships were 0.95 ( p � 0.05; two-tailed test) for all relationships greater than 0.15 (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

To test the extent to which a combination of signifi- cant sources of motivation inform organizational citi- zenship behaviors, the three sources of motivation with significant correlations were entered in a hierarchical stepwise regression model, with OCB as the dependent variable. (See Table 2.) The resulting model accounted for close to 12% (r2 � 0.12; F � 14.28; p � 0.007) of the variance in OCB. This variance accounted for is among the greatest for multiple sourced data in similar studies. This result demonstrates that employees’ sources of motivation offer some explanation when examining organizational citizenship behavior.

Discussion

Much research in the organizational citizenship behav- ior realm has focused on the ability of dispositional or

jls20202.qxd 5/17/11 10:01 AM Page 29

30 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls

motivation (Deci et al., 1999). Results were also coun- ter to assumptions that individuals may perform be- yond expectations as a result of anticipated tangible rewards (Organ, 1997). Thus, OCB may be operant when there is a reward system in place for it; however, if not in place, individuals will not perform discre- tionary behaviors.

Self-concept external motivation had a negative rela- tionship with OCB (H2). Thus, individuals who are motivated by external rewards such as recognition and praise are less likely to exhibit OCBs. Bolino et al. (2004) suggested that the self-serving nature of OCB may lead to impression management tendencies, which has been positively connected to OCB (Finkelstein & Penner, 2004). However, the relationship was in the op- posite direction, consistent with Barbuto and colleagues’ (2003) results that found a negative relationship be- tween the two variables, but power issues led to conser- vative interpretation of results. In addition, results are consistent with the literature because OCBs are not for- mally rewarded by leaders or organizations; thus, em- ployees who are looking for rewards most likely will not engage in discretionary behaviors.

As expected, self-concept internal motivation shared a positive relationship with OCB. Individuals who are motivated more to meet their own personal standards (versus external standards) are therefore more likely to engage in OCBs. This result is consistent with the past works of Tang and Ibrahim (1998) and Neuman and Kickul (1998), each of which reported that achievement motivation were related to OCB.

Contrary to expectations, goal internalization was not related to OCB. This means that for this population, the extent to which individuals are motivated by princi- ples and values does not influence the extent of their dis- plays of OCB. Tan and Tan (2008) reported that organizational concern motives (desire to help the or- ganization, which stems from pride and identification that the individual has toward the organization) was pos- itively related to OCB. Thus, it would be expected that goal internalization and OCB would be related. How- ever, this finding can be explained as individuals moti- vated by goal internalization are motivated by this source only when their values are congruent with the values of the organization they work for. Thus, individuals in this sample may not share values with the organizations they

motivational variables to predict OCB (Organ, 1990; Organ & Lingl, 1995; Tang & Ibrahim). This study contributed to this knowledge base, and the findings support the continued use of dispositional prediction of organizational citizenship behaviors. Significant rela- tionships were found between employees’ specific sources of motivation and their displays of organiza- tional citizenship behaviors. These findings are similar to those supported by previous research using motiva- tion to predict organizational citizenship behavior (Barbuto et al., 2003; Tang & Ibrahim); however, it also extends this work by using an updated measure of mo- tivation and examining the sources of motivation in the aggregate. Furthermore, this work used data from lead- ers and employees, avoiding single-source or common method variance, which may inflate relationships.

Instrumental motivation was negatively related with OCB (H1). This means that individuals motivated by formal rewards were less likely to perform beyond ex- pectations if performance was not tied to formal reward systems. Results were consistent with the seminal work and definition of OCB (Smith et al., 1983) and with findings that extrinsic rewards may undermine intrinsic

Table 2. Stepwise Regression Analysis to Determine the Best Predictive Model (N � 239)

Model summary

Adjusted Model R-square R-square F-value

Model 1 (DV: OCB)a 0.119 0.122 14.28b

a Predictors: Self-Concept Internal, Instrumental, Self-Concept External. p � 0.01b

Hierarchical Regression Analysis: The Best Predictive Model of OCB

*Sig. Stepwise R-square F-change F-change

1. Self-Concept Internal 0.067 9.26 0.0014

2. Instrumental Motivation 0.105 3.20 0.0243

3. Self-Concept External 0.119 2.26 0.0491

Note: Dependent variable: organizational citizenship behavior. *Sig. F � two-tailed test. Intrinsic Process and Goal Internalization were not entered because they did not share significant variance with OCB.

jls20202.qxd 5/17/11 10:01 AM Page 30

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls 31

work for, and therefore not demonstrate organizational citizenship behaviors. Future work would need to test the extent to which individuals do (or do not) agree with their organization’s values to determine if this may moderate the relationship between goal internalization and OCBs.

These findings contribute to the literature on ante- cedents of OCB, providing some significant correlates between content-based work motivation and OCB. The significant relationships were modest but informative for understanding the antecedents of these discretionary behaviors and the motivational sources behind them. Because motivation of employees was measured using self-reports and the OCBs were measured by using su- pervisor reports, common method variance was avoided, which also leads to more conservative relation- ship estimates than studies that use single-source data (i.e., Finkelstein, 2006). In studies that tested OCB using supervisory reports and employee data, the re- ported relationships between the variables were typi- cally smaller, but their designs were more sound (Carmeli & Josman, 2006).

I M P L I C AT I O N S F O R P R A C T I C E

Based on the findings of this study, there are a few cau- tious implications for practice in business and leader- ship. First, leaders are cautioned that the relationships found in this study, while statistically significant, were relatively low, accounting for just 12% of the variance in the data. However, these relationships are in most cases stronger in effect size than those reported in pre- vious studies of dispositional antecedents of OCBs.

Another implication that emerged is that sources of motivation can have an impact on employees’ use of OCBs. Specifically, individuals higher in instrumental and self-concept external motivation demonstrated orga- nizational citizenship behaviors less frequently. Also, in- dividuals’ self-concept internal motivation was positively correlated with organizational citizenship behaviors. This suggests, as Tang and Ibrahim (1998) found when they examined a similar construct in “need for achieve- ment,” that individuals with an inner drive for out- come-based satisfactions (i.e., self-concept internal) are more likely to exhibit OCBs.

Leaders are reminded that most studies of antecedents of OCBs have shown that dispositional variables such as personality, motivation, and attitudes account for less

than 15% of total variance, which means that 85% of organizational citizenship behaviors can be linked to variables other than these. Other factors, many situa- tional or contextual in nature, clearly play a major role in our understanding of OCBs. For example, while mo- tivation does relate to organizational citizenship behav- iors, it is just as likely that prior work experiences, behaviors of colleagues, quality of working relationships, and education and training may play just as important roles in shaping individuals’ organizational behaviors. Leaders should be cautious not to overreact to the find- ings of this study and assume that individuals motivated in certain ways will give them the best opportunities to garner organizational citizenship behaviors. These find- ings indicate that situational factors account for greater variance in organizational citizenship behavior than dis- positional factors (Organ & Lingl, 1995; Organ & Ryan, 1995).

Leaders often report that they are searching for self- motivated employees, under the assumption that these individuals will be most productive. Findings in this study, which are consistent with findings of past stud- ies, demonstrate a significant positive relationship be- tween individuals’ self-concept internal motivation and their OCBs. Perhaps a more complex research design could incorporate both motives and situational contexts to assess the degree to which these motives exist in indi- viduals and also the extent to which these motives are satisfied, and the work climate and structure in the or- ganization. As a follow-up to research in leadership sub- stitutes, path-goal, or other contingency-based theories, perhaps leadership behavior and organizational condi- tions, moderated by employees’ sources of motivation, may serve as independent variables for predicting OCBs.

L I M I TAT I O N S A N D OT H E R R E S E A RC H O P P O RT U N I T I E S

One limitation of this study was its focus on a single type of business. The participating organizations are similar in geographic location and the types of services they provide. The homogeneity of the sample may limit the generalization of results. However, because organi- zational citizenship behavior must be examined within a given context, the sample was useful for examining agriculturally based industry trends in OCB (Organ, 1990). A similar research design with a more diverse

jls20202.qxd 5/17/11 10:01 AM Page 31

32 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls

has also been strongly related to OCB (Asgari, Silong, Ahmad, & Sama, 2008). Thus, leadership remains as one of the most important aspects related to employee discretionary behaviors. It is our hope that leaders and human resource personnel may consider the results of this work when making recruiting decisions. We also hope that researchers extend this work and continue field testing for the best predictors of organizational citizen- ship behaviors.

References Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142–175.

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

Aquino, K. (1995). Relationships between pay inequity, perceptions of procedural justice, and organizational citizenship. Employee Re- sponsibilities and Rights Journal, 8, 21–33.

Asgari, A., Silong, A. D., Ahmad, A., & Sama, B. A. (2008). The re- lationship between transformational leadership behaviors, leader- member exchange, and organizational citizenship behaviors. European Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 140–151.

Barbuto, J. E. (2000). Influence triggers: A framework for under- standing follower compliance. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 365–387.

Barbuto, J. E. (2004). The Motivation Sources Inventory. Lincoln, NE: Future Leadership.

Barbuto, J. E., Brown, L. L., Wheeler, D. W., & Wilhite, M. S. (2003). Motivation, altruism, and generalized compliance: A field study of organizational citizenship behaviors. Psychological Reports, 92, 498–502.

Barbuto, J. E., & Bugenhagen, M. J. (2006). Preliminary relation between followers’ locus of control and organizational citizenship behaviors. Psychological Reports, 98(3), 882–884.

Barbuto, J. E., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. (2000). A field study of two measures of work motivation for predicting leaders’ transfor- mational behaviors. Psychological Reports, 86, 295–300.

Barbuto, J. E., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. (2002). A field examination of two measures of work motivation as predictors of leaders’ influ- ence tactics. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 601–616.

Barbuto, J. E., & Scholl, R. W. (1998). Motivation Sources Inven- tory: Development and validation of new scales to measure an inte- grative taxonomy of motivation. Psychological Reports, 82, 1011–1022.

sample population is a worthwhile endeavor and could prove to be especially valuable if other contextual vari- ables, such as leaders’ behaviors, job conditions, proce- dural and distributive justice, and so on are tested.

The Motivation Sources Inventory used to measure sources of motivation in this study demonstrated com- paratively better psychometric properties than it had in a previous study with a similar population (Barbuto et al., 2003). One explanation for this difference may be the ongoing development of the MSI measure (Barbuto, 2002). This study used a more recent edition of the MSI, which resulted in stronger psychometric properties.

More research is needed on the antecedents of OCBs. Although many studies suggest these behaviors are im- portant to the success of individuals and organizations (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), after more than 20 years of research, the antecedents of these behaviors are still relatively un- resolved. If and when the antecedents of these behav- iors are known, leaders may be able to increase their frequency of occurrence in the workplace. The out- comes of such studies are certain to be both relevant and practical for leaders attempting to maximize orga- nizational behavior and performance.

Conclusions This article reported the results of a field study testing the relationships between employees’ sources of work motivation and their use of organizational citizenship behaviors as rated by their leaders. Results of the study demonstrated that individuals’ sources of work motiva- tion were related to their use of organizational citizenship behaviors. Specifically, self-concept internal work moti- vation was most associated with individuals’ display of organizational citizenship behaviors. Also, individuals’ instrumental and self-concept external motivations were negatively related to organizational citizenship behav- iors. These results indicate that organizations seeking or- ganizational citizenship behaviors may select individuals higher in self-concept internal and lower in both instru- mental and self-concept external motivation. We cau- tion leaders that greater than 85% of organizational citizenship behaviors are derived from factors other than work motivation. Leaders may also keep in mind that effective leadership, such as transformational leadership,

jls20202.qxd 5/17/11 10:01 AM Page 32

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls 33

Barbuto, J. E., & Scholl, R. W. (1999). Leaders’ motivation and perception of followers’ motivation as predictors of influence tac- tics used. Psychological Reports, 84, 1087–1098.

Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psy- chology, 44, 1–26.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citi- zenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.

Becker, J. A. H., & O’Hair, D. H. (2007). Machiavellians’ motives in organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Communi- cation Research, 35(3), 246–267.

Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about orga- nizational citizenship behavior. Human Resources Management Re- view, 14(2), 229–247.

Carmeli, A., & Josman, Z. E. (2006). The relationship among emo- tional intelligence, task performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Human Performance, 19(4), 403–419.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.

Deluga, R. W. (1994). The relationship between attributional charis- matic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1652–1669.

Deluga, R. W. (1995). Supervisor trust building, leader-member ex- change and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupa- tional and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315–326.

Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behav- ior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421–444.

Finkelstein, M. A. (2006). Dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors: Motives, motive fulfillment, and role iden- tity. Social Behavior and Personality, 34(6), 603–616.

Finkelstein, M. A., & Penner, L. A. (2004). Predicting organiza- tional citizenship behaviors: Integrating the functional and role iden- tity approaches. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 383–398.

Harrell, A. M., & Stahl, M. J. (1981). A behavioral decision the- ory approach to measure McClelland’s trichotomy of needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 242–247.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organiza- tions. New York, NY: Wiley.

Kemery, E. R., Bedeian, A. G., & Zacur, S. R. (1996). Expectancy- based job cognitions and job affects as predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psycholog y, 26, 635–651.

Latham, G., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1995). Criterion-related validity of the situational and patterned behavior description interviews with organizational citizenship behaviors. Human Performance, 8, 67–80.

Leonard, N., Beauvais, L., & Scholl, R.W. (1999). Work motiva- tion: The incorporation of self concept-based processes. Human Re- lations, 52, 969–998.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. (2002). The nature and di- mensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical re- view and a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52–65.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70–80.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Moorman, R. H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satis- faction and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations, 46, 759–776.

Neuman, G. A., & Kickul, J. R. (1998). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Achievement orientation and personality. Journal of Busi- ness and Psychology, 13(2), 263–279.

O’Brien, K. E., & Allen, T. (2008). The relative importance of cor- relates of organizational citizenship behavior and counterproduc- tive work behavior using multiple sources of data. Human Performance, 21(1), 62–88.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43–72.

jls20202.qxd 5/17/11 10:01 AM Page 33

34 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 5 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls

Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organiza- tional commitment, and fairness perceptions on organizational cit- izenship behavior. Journal of Psychology, 132, 277–290.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship be- havior within a labor union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 161–169.

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

Staw, B. M. (1976). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett.

Tan, H. H., & Tan, M. L. (2008). Organizational citizenship be- havior and social loafing: The role of personality, motives, and con- textual factors. Journal of Psychology, 142, 89–108.

Tang, T. L. P., & Ibrahim, A. H. S. (1998). Antecedents of organi- zational citizenship behavior: Public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East. Public Personnel Management, 27, 529–548.

Torlak, O., & Koc, U. (2007). Materialistic attitude as an antecedent of organizational citizenship behavior. Management Research News, 30(8), 581–596.

Zhong, L. (2007). Effects of psychological capital on employee’s job performance, organizational commitment, and organizational citi- zenship behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(2), 328–334.

John E. Barbuto Jr. is an associate professor of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at California State Univer- sity at Fullerton. He can be reached at jbarbuto@ fullerton.edu.

Joana S. P. Story is an assistant professor of Management at Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Dr. Story earned her Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 2010. She can be reached at joanastory@novabse.pt.

Organ, D. W. (1994). Personality and organizational citizenship be- havior. Journal of Management, 20, 465–478.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s con- struct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97.

Organ, D. W. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W., & Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction and or- ganizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(3), 339–350.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of atti- tudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship be- havior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.

Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A personality and social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 10(2), 111–131.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citi- zenship behavior and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351–363.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and or- ganizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Marketing, 22, 259–298.

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

Rioux, S., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational cit- izenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 86, 1306–1314.

jls20202.qxd 5/17/11 10:01 AM Page 34

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.