You are on page 1of 14

Journal of Applied Psychology 2011, Vol. 96, No.

3, 619 – 632

© 2011 American Psychological Association 0021-9010/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021887


Relationships of Role Stressors With Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Meta-Analysis
Erin M. Eatough
University of South Florida

Chu-Hsiang Chang
Michigan State University

Stephanie A. Miloslavic
Florida Institute of Technology

Russell E. Johnson
Michigan State University

Several quantitative reviews have documented the negative relationships that role stressors have with task performance. Surprisingly, much less attention has been directed at the impact of role stressors on other aspects of job performance, such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). The goal of this study was to therefore estimate the overall relationships of role stressors (i.e., role ambiguity, conflict, and overload) with OCB. A meta-analysis of 42 existing studies indicated that role ambiguity and role conflict were negatively related to OCB and that these relationships were moderated by the target of OCB, type of organization, OCB rating source, and publication status. As expected, role conflict had a stronger negative relationship with OCB than it did with task performance. Finally, we found support for a path model in which job satisfaction mediated relationships of role stressors with OCB and for a positive direct relationship between role overload and OCB. Keywords: role overload, role conflict, role ambiguity, organizational citizenship behavior, meta-analysis

Understanding the variables that impact job performance is an obvious concern for organizations. One line of research has examined the effects of occupational stressors on performance. Role stressors like role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload have emerged as key predictors of employee behavior (Jex, 1998). Although the negative associations between role stressors and in-role performance have been well established (Gilboa, Shirom, Fried, & Cooper, 2008; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Tubre ´ & Collins, 2000), less attention has been devoted to extra-role behaviors like organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). This omission is unfortunate because the criterion space for job performance includes not only in-role behaviors but also OCB. Researchers have recognized the important linkages between employee OCB performance and organizational effectiveness and profitability (N. P. Podsakoff,

This article was published Online First January 17, 2011. Erin M. Eatough, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida; Chu-Hsiang Chang, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University; Stephanie A. Miloslavic, School of Psychology, Florida Institute of Technology; Russell E. Johnson, Department of Management, Michigan State University. The first two authors contributed equally to this project. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 25th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology in April 2010, Atlanta, Georgia. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to ChuHsiang (Daisy) Chang, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 346 Psychology Building, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: 619

Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009; P. M. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). However, without clear evidence that role stressors represent impediments to performing OCB, organizations may be reluctant to take steps to reduce role stressors or help employees cope with the negative reactions elicited by such stressors (Jex, 1998). It is therefore crucial to verify the nomological network of occupational stress (e.g., Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000; Chang, Johnson, & Yang, 2007) so that evidencebased programs can be developed to reduce stressors and foster OCB. The purpose of this article is threefold: (a) to provide a quantitative review of the relationships of role stressors (i.e., role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload) with OCB, (b) to compare role stressor–OCB relationships with role stressor–task performance ones, and (c) to test a mediation model that includes a theoretically derived mediator of role stressor–OCB relationships. A quantitative review concerning OCB is needed because every meta-analytic review to date (e.g., Gilboa et al., 2008; Örtqvist & Wincent, 2006; Tubre ´ & Collins, 2000) has focused exclusively on task performance. Including OCB in the criterion space provides a more complete picture of how role stressors relate to employees’ various workplace behaviors (Jex, 1998). Although OCB is suspected to be more greatly affected by role stressors than required in-role job behaviors, owing to its discretionary nature (e.g., Jex, 1998), this assumption has seldom been examined empirically. Our study provides the first comparison of meta-analytic estimates of relationships of role stressors with OCB versus task performance to directly test this assumption. Last, by testing job satisfaction as a mediator, we are able to better delineate the nature of

1995). Shore. 2001). 2004. such as job satisfaction. Finally. such that employees are uncertain as to what is expected of them (Katz & Kahn. Ahearne. like OCB (e. 2000). Because they are perceived as a hindrance to work achievement. Interestingly. Below. Ample research findings have suggested that role stressors have detrimental effects on employee attitudes and increase strain responses (e. MILOSLAVIC.. 2005). which we discuss below. Role stressors. Relationships of Role Stressors With OCB OCB refers to discretionary behavior that benefits organizations and their members by improving the social and psychological context in which the technical core of the organization operates (Borman & Motowidlo. 2005). organizational commitment. Charlin. Role conflict refers to simultaneous contradictory expectations from work colleagues that interfere with one another and make it difficult to complete work tasks (Katz & Kahn. role stressors.620 EATOUGH.g. 2006). Despite its discretionary nature. role ambiguity is most likely to be viewed as a pure hindrance. 2000). 1997). Organ. Scott. (2008) suggested that the differences in relationship magnitude may be due to how employees appraise these role stressors. House.. Organ & Ryan. On the Role Stressors In the occupational health literature. 1978). CHANG. & Miller. Interestingly. they are likely to experience lower morale. & Roth. M. Role stressors give rise to experiences of anxiety and tension (Jackson & Schuler. Indeed. Specifically. 2006). The second dimension. it may have a more complex relationship with OCB compared with the other role stressors. Interestingly. it also derives from employees taking on more responsibilities or challenging tasks in order to develop or grow (Gilboa et al. refers to the extent to which a stressor is viewed as a potential learning and achievement opportunity. Rosen. which reduce the likelihood that OCB will be performed. . Harrison. Fried et al. and role overload. Gilboa.. because they lead to a redirection of effort to cope with sources of strain (Belschak & Den Hartog. The first dimension. and tension and anxiety. Owing to their different natures. Aversive stimuli may even activate behavioral inhibition systems (Belschak & Den Hartog. 2008. 1997... resulting in avoidance-oriented motivations that “turn off” OCB (Johnson & Chang. 2008. LePine. 2008. & LePine. a recent meta-analysis (Fried et al. refers to the extent to which a stressor is considered as threatening and impeding to individuals’ work achievements. 2008). 1985). we postulate that job satisfaction will also mediate the relationship of role ambiguity and role conflict with OCB.g. and other constraints (Rizzo. 1970). In addition to discrete emotions such as anxiety and tension. Erez. and organizations (Bolino. role stressors are some of the most commonly studied work stressors (Gilboa et al. Although role overload may be regarded as a threat because it represents an overwhelming demand on employees that exceeds their abilities or coping resources. Tubre ´ & Collins. 2009).. Negative emotional states may increase the likelihood of disengagement from discretionary behaviors. 2003) and support (Wayne. Among the three role stressors. Whereas positive emotions are linked to action tendencies to perform prosocial and cooperative behaviors (Carlson. research has often concluded that out of the three role stressors. Included among situation-based antecedents of OCB are role stressors. Tubre ´ & Collins. 1985. building on work by LePine and colleagues (e. Newman. are likely to be viewed as hindering employees’ ability to attain personal and professional goals at work (LePine et al. Organ & Ryan. two emotional states that are negatively related to prosocial behaviors (M. Indeed. 1993. 1998).. & Johnson. Turnley. & Lirtzman.g. Fried. & Liden. aspects of work settings and experiences are also important. prolonged exposure to role stressors has been related to employees being dissatisfied with their jobs (O’Driscoll & Beehr. 2000). because role overload encompasses both hindrance and challenge aspects.. Podsakoff. we provide an overview of role stressors and their relationships with OCB.. 1994. as indicated by lower job satisfaction (e. Gilboa et al. role ambiguity and conflict have stronger relationships with various employee reactions. Örtqvist & Wincent. Jackson & Schuler. & Bloodgood. 1978). existing meta-analyses have revealed that role ambiguity has stronger negative associations with task performance than role conflict and role overload do (Gilboa et al. especially ambiguity and conflict. their abilities. & LePine. 2009. emotional exhaustion. challenge. Jackson & Schuler. 1994). & MacKenzie. & Judge. Stordeur. elicit negative emotions. N. 1988). negative emotions are related to lower likelihood of cooperation (De Cremer & Van Hiel. As employees are unable to achieve valued outcomes at work. role conflict.. Podsakoff. such as organizational fairness (Tepper & Taylor.g. Role ambiguity refers to vague and unclear expectations set for employees. In the current study. & Cooper. 1997). 1997). Olson-Buchanan.. 2009). 2008). & Vandenberghe. B. Bachrach & Jex.. role overload has both strong hindrance and challenge components. which in turn may be associated with reduced OCB (LePine..g. 2002. Podsakoff et al. O’Driscoll & Beehr. Harris. role stressors may also be related to OCB through general job satisfaction. argued that employees evaluate each stressor on two basic dimensions. 2006). D’hoore. with little challenge component (Gilboa et al. OCB is a facet of job performance that results in beneficial outcomes for employees (Allen & Rush. & Levy. whereas the latter is mandatory. especially given that job satisfaction has stronger ties to OCB than does task performance (Organ. P. AND JOHNSON the processes linking role stressors to OCB and to highlight intervention possibilities that may be used to enhance OCB via the mediating variable (e. role conflict is likely to have a slightly higher challenge component. Several reasons have been posited as to why role stressors relate to OCB. than role overload (e. the three role stressors likely have different relationships with job performance. Role overload describes situations in which employees feel that there are too many responsibilities or activities expected of them given the time available.g. 2002. hindrance. 1985. as employees may try to bargain with the various sources of contradictory work expectations in order to meet all their demands. particularly ambiguity and conflict. 2006). Shirom. Role stressors include role ambiguity. Although person-based variables such as personality and affect contribute to the performance of OCB (Ilies. Boswell. work groups (P. 2009). OCB differs from in-role task performance in that the former is not formally prescribed by the job. 2008) reported that relationships between role ambiguity and role conflict with task performance were mediated by job satisfaction. 1977). This negotiation process can empower employees and build their efficacy. Gilboa et al. 1995). 2008). Compared with role ambiguity. 2008).. Chang.

then employees may respond by reducing prosocial behaviors that target the perceived source of experienced strain (i. whereas role overload represents competing demands regarding what to do first to meet expectations. Theoretical Moderators of Role Stressor–OCB Relationships We examine potential moderators of role stressor–OCB relationships. & Cluse-Tolar. Contributing to the organization through OCB requires additional resources on the part of employees. & Wall... (b) role conflict. 2007). Turnley. They argued that when employees strive to fulfill an “organizational-member role” by performing OCB. it is difficult for employees to differentiate between task performance and OCB. Hypothesis 4: (a) Role conflict and (b) role overload will have stronger negative relationships with OCB than with task performance. LePine et al. In this case. Research has suggested that an additional causal pathway may also exist between role overload and OCB. MacKenzie. If so. 2006. which may lead to perceived overload (Bergeron. & Knoke. Lindblom. As such. 1998. when considered as a challenge stressor. 2006). Lambert. Boswell et al.e. Distinguishing between OCBI and OCBO is useful because they sometimes have unique antecedents (LePine et al. employees may prioritize by reducing discretionary extra-role behaviors and only focus energy on necessary job duties and tasks that are directly aligned with their performance evaluation standards (Bergeron. Role conflict represents incompatible demands regarding how to meet performance expectations. Rotundo & Sackett.g. Organ (1988) suggested that when job descriptions are more ambiguous. Because reducing the performance of OCB does not carry the same risks as failing to perform the required in-role behavior (Allen & Rush.g. Hypothesis 3: The relationship between (a) role ambiguity. owing to its employment-based repercussions. & Fetter.. further supporting that perceived need to engage in OCB creates additional demands and role overload. Bergeron. role conflict and overload are intertwined with excessive and contradictory demands on the finite resources that employees can devote toward achieving valuable work outcomes. MacKenzie. we do not expect role ambiguity to differ in its relationships with task performance and OCB. Public organizations differ from private ones in that the former tend to have more bureaucratic compensation systems (e. Gilstrap. negative relationship with OCB and that this relationship will be mediated by job satisfaction. and (c) role overload with OCB. OCBO). for the same reasons they may also be less likely to scale back OCBI relative to OCBO. we expect that compared with the other two role stressors. 2009. Furthermore. private) as a potential moderator. Kalleberg. Allen..g.g. Örtqvist & Wincent. which are especially useful when experiencing hindrance stressors. 1999). Last. 2002). In- . there is evidence that OCB contributes to performance appraisal ratings and reward decisions (Allen & Rush. we expect that OCBI levels will fluctuate less than OCBO levels as a function of role stressors. We also considered type of organization (public vs. employees may be less inclined to reduce their performance of OCBI because such behaviors build relationships and expand social networks within organizations (Bolino et al. 1997). Perrewe ´ et al. there exists the potential for positive linkages between role overload and OCB.. As such. they are more likely to do so in order to cope with the distress. 1985.. Regardless of the mechanisms. and (c) role overload with OCB will be stronger for OCBO versus OCBI. 2005). rather than performance-based incentives (Gore. Hypothesis 5: The relationships of (a) role ambiguity. & Hui. 1996). Podsakoff. OCBI is a means for employees to strengthen their support systems and coping resource repertoire (Halbesleben & Bowler.. 1977). 2002). Hypothesis 2: The negative relationship between role overload and OCB will be weaker than the negative relationship between (a) role ambiguity and (b) role conflict and OCB. 1998. previous studies have supported that OCB was valued equally to. 2005). they suffer higher role overload as a result. 1991). Just as employees are hesitant to reduce in-role performance. OCBI is more visible and therefore more likely to be rewarded than OCBO (P. It should be noted that although role overload. if not more than. role overload creates excessive demands on available resources. & Paine. In particular. 1993). In sum. 2007). M. 2002). particularly in terms of their time and energy. its associations with elevated strain and lower satisfaction remain significant (e. 1991. which creates a stronger sense of ownership over one’s work and motivates higher levels of performance (LePine et al. In contrast. Marsden. In their more recent study. which may be an individual in the organization (OCBI) or the organization itself (OCBO. 2005). task performance when role definitions are inherently vague (e. 2005). Bolino and Turnley (2005) reported a positive relationship from OCB to role overload. Parker.ROLE STRESSORS AND OCB 621 one hand. Although role stressors are believed to negatively relate to both OCB and task performance. engaging in OCB is less likely to be formally recognized during the performance appraisal and rewarded accordingly in public organizations. Reynolds. 1993. Williams & Anderson. may be positively related to performance through higher motivation and self-efficacy (e.. Employees often attribute strain originating from role stressors to their work organization. such that engaging in OCB contributes to experienced overload. MacKenzie. and Suazo (2010) found that perceived pressure to perform OCB was positively related to actual OCB performance and role overload. 2004. Pasupuleti. and (c) role overload and OCB will be mediated by job satisfaction. Sprigg. Podsakoff. Indeed. (b) role conflict.. their relationships with the two outcomes may be quite different depending on the type of role stressors considered. 2002. 2007). Thus. Although OCB is usually considered discretionary and not part of formal job descriptions (Organ. Griffin.. Podsakoff. Hypothesis 1: There will be a negative relationship between (a) role ambiguity. Bolino. rather than to specific people within the organization (Siegrist. (b) role conflict. role overload may also be tied to heightened responsibility and more work challenges. to the extent that employees are overtaxed and thus less able to perform OCB. role overload will have a weaker. One such variable is the target of OCB.. However. Bass. tenure-based pay.

because this procedure does not take into consideration the level of dependence across effect sizes from the same sample. First. sportsmanship) were combined with keywords associated with role stressors (role ambiguity.. role conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology.g. cultural. ism. Publication bias refers to the argument that published findings are skewed in favor of reporting significant effects. civic virtue. Thus. Method Literature Search Four methods were used to search for relevant studies. 2008) was adopted to calculate the adjusted sample size whenever multiple effect sizes from the same sample were averaged in order to account for the relatedness among these effect sizes. However. and (c) role overload with OCB will be stronger for published versus unpublished studies.. Kalleberg et al. respectively. metaanalyses based solely on published findings may overestimate effect sizes. the Academy of Management. Keywords associated with OCB (organizational citizenship behavior. workload. & Bommer. Moreover.g. International Journal of Stress Management. (b) role conflict. 1987). we included studies that examined relationships between OCB and work demands (k ϭ 3). starting the search from 1980 was deemed appropriate. This approach is commonly adopted to avoid inflation of the sample size (Cheung & Chan. public sector employees often consider incentives or monetary rewards tied to performance less important (Wittmer.622 EATOUGH. Human Performance.. with the expectation that role stressor–OCB relationships will be higher in published studies. the adjustedweighted procedure (Cheung & Chan. we located 24. role clarity.g. Stress. M. Thus. OCBI and OCBO). altru- . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. only empirical studies that investigated relationships between OCB and at least one role stressor were included. M. 2008). Journal of Vocational Behavior. First.and other-ratings of OCB. When predictor and criterion data are provided by the same source. 1983. the effect sizes were averaged together. The adjusted sample size was then used as the sample weight for the sample-weighted average effect size. Our search identified three studies that examined relationships between role stressors and the personality construct of conscientiousness (e. 1993). and workload (k ϭ 1) as effect sizes for the role overload–OCB relationship. interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2006). Methodological Moderators of Role Stressor–OCB Relationships The source of OCB data is a potential moderator. & Podsakoff. Podsakoff. contextual performance. 1991). In total. Smith. the Society for Human Resource Management. MILOSLAVIC. MacKenzie. loyalty. Inclusion Criteria and Coding Empirical studies were included in the meta-analysis if they fit four criteria. Finally. No geographical. we compared our reference list with the reference lists of existing reviews of OCB and role stressors (e. individual support. As such. ABI/INFORM. courtesy. As such. & Russell. and sometimes conflicting. Organ. time pressure (k ϭ 2). 1996). Barnard. compliance. Because the original conception of OCB is often accredited to Organ and colleagues’ work in 1983 (e. MEDLINE. Human Relations. thereby resulting in stronger relationships when OCB is self-rated. perhaps because self-ratings contain more bias (Allen. E. as public sectors often have diverse. Rush. In all. 1993). 2004. conscientiousness. 2003).. individual initiative. We therefore expect the following: Hypothesis 6: The relationships of (a) role ambiguity. although we included only materials in English. 22. role conflict. it is debatable whether work behaviors can be accurately measured via self-report (Fletcher & Baldry. Third. and role overload. Second. and (c) role overload with OCB will be stronger for self-rated versus supervisor-rated OCB. OCB is likely to be viewed as substantially more discretionary in the public sector versus the private sector. researchers have concluded that pay-for-performance systems are less feasible in public sectors (Kellough & Lu. where organizations are more likely to have performance-based reward structures that recognize extra-role performance (Gore. and Emonet. and Coping: An International Journal. Podsakoff. Personnel Psychology.g. we identified 42 relevant articles with 44 separate samples that could be included in the meta-analysis (see the Appendix). Stress Medicine. Although it is appropriate to use self-rated data for role stressors. and (c) role overload with OCB will be stronger for public versus private organizations. Finally. common method variance may accentuate observed relationships (P. P. the first and third authors conducted independent computerized searches of five databases: PsycINFO. helping. Walters. Harris. time pressure. or population restrictions were placed on the search. ERIC. correlation coefficients were collected as effect sizes. These studies were excluded. and 19 effect sizes for relationships involving role ambiguity. 2006. & Licata. organizational support. When a study reported correlations between a role stressor and multiple measures of OCB (e. & Near. and Google Scholar. If the distinction between task performance and OCB is less clear in the private sector. organizational missions and performance standards (Baldwin. Hypothesis 7: The relationships of (a) role ambiguity. G. 1993. it likely underestimates the heterogeneity among these effect sizes. CHANG.. Hypothesis 8: The relationships of (a) role ambiguity. Artis. and Work & Stress. we contacted active researchers for file-drawer studies and posted calls for unpublished articles on electronic mailing lists run by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Lee. we tested publication status as a moderator. The first and third authors also conducted a manual search of articles published in 14 journals since 1980: Academy of Management Journal. 1999). large discrepancies have been observed between self. (b) role conflict. Anxiety. then private sector employees may be less likely to reduce their level of OCB when faced with role stressors. job demand) for the database search. Osborne & Gaebler. Second. (b) role conflict. In fact. which are composed of idiosyncratic perceptions of the environment. 1983). MacKenzie. role overload. Journal of Management. correlations between role clarity (opposite of role ambiguity) and OCB were recorded inversely. 2000). AND JOHNSON deed. Bateman & Organ.

Hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported. unlike role ambiguity and role conflict. Because no strong theoretical rationale or methodological concerns exist to . such as study design (e. the difference in effect sizes was less than . Finally.08. 1993. Because no published meta-analysis estimated the relationships of role overload with role ambiguity and conflict. 1991). Z tests were conducted to compare the magnitude of relationships of role stressors with task performance versus OCB by comparing our estimates with those reported by Gilboa et al. and it was found that the Fail-safe N was 1.89 and . and three data points were identified as outliers for the role overload–OCB relationship. 1993). To test whether job satisfaction mediated relationships between role stressors and OCB.030 for the role conflict–OCB relationship. Sagie & Koslowsky. . This provided support for Hypothesis 1a. As shown in Table 1.. The variance and standard deviation of the corrected correlation were then calculated to determine the 95% credibility interval.001) had stronger relationships with OCB than did role overload.91 and .88 and . Ones.g. 2004). first independently coded the studies for the four moderators: type of OCB. Overall.05). & Schmidt. were also coded. However.61. We adopted Shadish (1996) and Viswesvaran and Ones’s (1995) procedures for model testing. This homogeneity test helps determine how the standard error for effect sizes should be estimated. and OCB using the current and previous meta-analytic results. This supported Hypothesis 1b. Bennett. The means and standard deviations for the artifacts for the overall analysis of the role conflict–OCB relationship were.g.001 for role conflict and . As such. The percentage of variance accounted for by sampling error was calculated (Hunter & Schmidt. The statistical correction for attenuating artifacts such as unreliability of measures was then performed to derive the corrected estimate of the correlation coefficient (␳.g. In all the cases. Information regarding the confidence interval was used to judge whether the relationships found between role stressors and OCB were significantly different from zero. the adjusted-weighted procedure (Cheung & Chan.ROLE STRESSORS AND OCB 623 The first and the third authors. negative relationship with OCB (␳ ϭ –. 1990).663 for the role ambiguity–OCB relationship and 1. 2004. removing these outliers did little to the overall relationship strengths.01.91 and . the means and standard deviations for the artifacts were. and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. it may result in undercorrection for artifacts associated with measurement errors (Conway & Huffcutt.15..001) and role conflict (Z ϭ –5. Depending on the test results. Hall & Brannick. As mentioned earlier. When comparing the corrected correlations. Finally. sample-weighted mean correlation with OCB (r ៮ ϭ –. was calculated to examine whether there was significant variation in the corrected estimate. managerial vs. 2002). industry. 1997. we first built a meta-analytic correlation matrix consisting of all the corrected correlation coefficients between role stressors. Hunter & Schmidt. for the role overload–OCB overall analysis. nonmanagerial employees). rating source for OCB. role ambiguity had a significant. we conducted additional meta-analysis following the same procedure noted above for these relationships. type of organization. after correcting for sampling and measurement error. Additional characteristics. Viswesvaran. When the Q statistic was significant. We corrected for measurement unreliability in both the predictor and outcome variables using information from the empirical studies (e. different formulae were applied to calculate the standard error that would then be used to compute the 95% confidence interval around the sample-weighted mean correlation (Whitener. We conducted outlier analysis to examine the effect size distributions and the tolerance analysis for the Fail-safe N for when the meta-analytic relationship was significant (Rosenthal. 2004) to indicate the sampling error associated with sample sizes. p Ͻ . which provided no support for Hypothesis 1c. 2003). the means and standard deviations for the correction artifacts for the overall analysis were. not enough studies were available for these characteristics to include them as moderators in the analyses. Path analysis based on this correlation matrix was performed to evaluate the fit of the proposed mediation model. the estimated correlation was –. The chisquare test for the homogeneity of observed correlation coefficients across studies was then calculated (Rosenthal. Sampling and measurement error accounted for 18% of the variance in correlations. the sample-weighted mean correlation between role overload and OCB was nonsignificant (r ៮ ϭ –. and publication status.002 for OCB. longitudinal. experimental) and sample features (e. respectively. respectively.. 2008) was used to calculate the sample weight for studies that provided more than one effect size. (2008). The initial agreement between coders was 98%. Outlier analyses revealed that one data point was identified as an outlier for the role ambiguity–OCB and role conflict–OCB relationships each. Tolerance analyses were applied to the two significant relationships. . Results Bivariate Relationships Between Role Stressors and OCB Table 1 summarizes the meta-analytic estimates of the relationships between role stressors and OCB. p Ͻ .16). as it is more powerful in detecting small differences among effect sizes (Koslowsky & Sagie. which accounted for 21% of the variance across effect sizes. Selected meta-analyses published since 2006 provided estimates for relationships not included in the current study.13).91 and . Unfortunately. It is worth noting that because internal consistency is an inflated estimate of reliability. Procedure The meta-analysis was conducted following the strategy specified by Arthur. and Huffcutt (2001). correlational vs. Finally. After correcting for sampling and measurement error. For each target relationship. For the role ambiguity– OCB relationship.002 for OCB. job satisfaction. a sample-weighted mean correlation (r ៮) was first computed. respectively.001 for role ambiguity and . which is based upon the random-effects model of the Hunter and Schmidt (2004) approach. additional subgroup analyses were performed to examine the effects of a priori moderation effects (Cortina. A significant Q statistic is a preferred way to determine the presence of betweenstudy moderators. which is based on a chi-square distribution.88 and . role conflict had a significant. A 95% confidence interval excluding zero indicates that the correlation is significant. coefficient alphas.002 for OCB. who were master’s level organizational psychology graduate students. both role ambiguity (Z ϭ –5. 1979). 1996). cross-sectional vs. .004 for role overload and . The Q statistic.

06 .62‫ءءء‬.15 Ϫ.86.12 . 4 46.19 Ϫ.13 Ϫ.03 .215 430 4.11 Ϫ.09 .18 Ϫ.10 Ϫ.74.06 Ϫ.13 .41 100. 2 207.89‫ءءء‬. 11 17.03 Ϫ.122 6.22 Ϫ.04 24.47 Ϫ.11 Ϫ. CHANG. † p Ͻ .54‫ءءء‬ Ϫ2.02 Ϫ.09 Ϫ. 14 109.02 Ϫ.42 Ϫ.44‫ءءء‬.02 Ϫ.15 Ϫ.26‫ءءء‬.06 27.21 .26 Ϫ.12 17.05 Ϫ.79† 14 5 Note. 21 22.257 3.317 1. 18 0. 1 67. 95% CI ϭ 95% confidence interval around the mean sample-weighted correlation.756 3.12 . 95% CV ϭ 95% credibility interval around the corrected correlation.08 33.14 Ϫ.28 Ϫ.12 .08 Ϫ.258 2. 10 67.22 Ϫ.26 Ϫ.61‫ءءء‬.12 7.16 Ϫ. 8 42.02 Ϫ.84‫ءءء‬.57‫ءءء‬.09 Ϫ. 10 16.12 Ϫ.54 Ϫ.614 2.13 Ϫ.15 Ϫ.04 Ϫ.00 8.22 Ϫ.11 Ϫ.11 Ϫ.25 Ϫ.36‫ءءء‬. OCB ϭ organizational citizenship behavior.00 21.172 4. 9 30.16 Ϫ.21 Ϫ.13 Ϫ.03 Ϫ.30 26.12 .37 .24 Ϫ.07 Ϫ.11 . and Role Overload and OCB 95% CI N 5.85 Ϫ5.08 Ϫ.14 Ϫ. 5 0.12 Ϫ.414 1.05.10 Ϫ.05 Ϫ.919 2.794 1. ␳ ϭ estimate of corrected correlation. Z ϭ significant test of the difference between the corrected correlations.28 Ϫ.11 Ϫ.35 Ϫ.17 Ϫ.12 17.29 Ϫ.03 Ϫ.16 Ϫ.97‫ءء‬ 1.15 Ϫ.08 5.59 100.36‫ءءء‬ Ϫ2.31 Ϫ. OCBI ϭ OCB targeted at the individual.08 Ϫ.376 3.39 Ϫ.17 Ϫ. 9 42.05 Ϫ.17 Ϫ.17 .14 Ϫ.13 .49‫ءءء‬ 19 5 22 3.34 Ϫ. SD␳ ϭ corrected standard deviation of corrected correlation.13 Ϫ.44 Ϫ.40 Ϫ.00 27.29‫ءءء‬.44 8.19 Ϫ. 4 103. 9 2.27‫ءءء‬ 11 12 5 11 6 2 15 Ϫ7.35 49.07 . UL ϭ upper limit.14 Ϫ.00 .42 Ϫ. 1 164.20 .11 .12 20.06 .49 Ϫ.705 Ϫ.28 Ϫ.19 Ϫ.14 Ϫ. Q ϭ chi-square test for the homogeneity of true correlations across studies.33 Ϫ.31 Ϫ.07 .09 Ϫ.12 Ϫ.16 Ϫ.11 Ϫ.436 1.00 .82‫ءءء‬.89‫ءءء‬ 0.11 .42 Ϫ. 4 177.18 Ϫ.00 Ϫ. .15‫ء‬ Ϫ5.12 .89 35. 23 r ៮ SD␳ %SE LL UL LL UL Q.83 Ϫ. N ϭ total number of subjects.93‫ءءء‬.42 Ϫ.11 20.12 .52‫ءءء‬.11 Ϫ.09 .11 Ϫ.017 3. 10 90.83 10.05 .00 .97‫ءء‬.11 Ϫ.21 . AND JOHNSON 19 12 9 6 5 Role ambiguity Overall Type of OCB OCBI OCBO Type of organization Public Private Rating source Self Coworker Supervisor Publication status Published Unpublished Role conflict Overall Type of OCB OCBI OCBO Type of organization Public Private Rating source Self Supervisor Publication status Published Unpublished Role overload Overall Type of OCB OCBI OCBO Type of organization Public Private Rating source Self Supervisor Objective Publication status Published Unpublished 10 5 2 Ϫ2.28‫ءءء‬.06 .35 Ϫ.04 Ϫ.09 43.36 Ϫ.00 .08 Ϫ.11 Ϫ.22 Ϫ.02 Ϫ.461 3.24 Ϫ.63‫ءءء‬.05 Ϫ.47 21.60 Ϫ.00 17.06 Ϫ.22 .06 Ϫ.10 Ϫ.17 Ϫ. MILOSLAVIC.09 .85 21.27 Ϫ.21 Ϫ.27 Ϫ.14 .06 Ϫ.17 Ϫ.54‫ءءء‬.18 Ϫ. LL ϭ lower limit. ‫ ءءء‬p Ͻ .06 .40 133.09 Ϫ.01.00 .15 Ϫ.10 .16‫ءءء‬.11 Ϫ.08 Ϫ.59‫ءءء‬.36 Ϫ.27 Ϫ.74‫ءءء‬.05‫ء‬ Ϫ2.80 Ϫ.30 .56 Ϫ. 4 0. %SE ϭ percentage of observed variance accounted for by sampling error.194 1.001.16 Ϫ.08 Ϫ.03‫ء‬ 3.15 .18 Ϫ.22 .00 15.05 .49 Ϫ. k ϭ number of effect sizes.22 Ϫ.09 Ϫ.12 Ϫ.16.88 10 11 4 9 10 11 19 3 EATOUGH.28 Ϫ.295 962 6.27‫ءءء‬.05 Ϫ.00 Ϫ.01 . 5 21.11 21. ‫ ء‬p Ͻ .09 28.32 Ϫ.18 9.68 13.334 3.07 Ϫ.06 Ϫ.36 Ϫ.33 Ϫ.22 .022 4.22 .09 .20 Ϫ. 8 34.971 1.00 .539 5.01 .15 Ϫ.02.15 Ϫ.13 .604 5.39 Ϫ.04‫ءءء‬. Role Conflict.09 Ϫ.96 Ϫ.02 Ϫ. 3 82.50‫ءءء‬.00 Ϫ. 10 2.05 Ϫ.61 .00 100.11 Ϫ.48 .14 100.503 1.17‫ءءء‬.14 .11 .34.27 Ϫ.14 Ϫ.14 Ϫ. 18 14. df ␳ Z 95% CV Variable and moderator k 24 Ϫ0.37 Ϫ.531 886 325 4. 10 81.56 Ϫ.624 Table 1 Meta-Analytic Results for Relationships Between Role Ambiguity. 13 55. 18 18.16 Ϫ.03 Ϫ.21 Ϫ. OCBO ϭ OCB targeted at the organization.12 Ϫ. ‫ ءء‬p Ͻ .12 100. r ៮ ϭ mean sample-weighted correlation.25‫ءءء‬. 4 0.02 .10.08 Ϫ.00 .

34) than supervisor-rated OCB (␳ ϭ –.06. because the direct path from role ambiguity to OCB was not significant.85).001. role overload had a similar relationship with task performance and OCB. for role conflict. However. the magnitude of Note. Interestingly.11. 2005).01. it was removed from the second partial mediation model. Z ϭ Z test based on comparing current meta-analytic estimates with estimates from Gilboa et al. p Ͻ . contrary to Hypothesis 8a.24 Ϫ. Role conflict also had a direct. Hypothesis 3 received support. p Ͻ .ROLE STRESSORS AND OCB 625 justify their exclusion.22) versus private ones (␳ ϭ –. However. p Ͻ . In support of Hypothesis 6a.10). Consistent with hypotheses. and all the paths from role stressors to job satisfaction and from job satisfaction to OCB were significant and in the expected direction. as publication status was not a significant moderator. Z ϭ –5. which in turn was positively related to OCB (␤ ϭ .98.05). p Ͻ . role ambiguity had a stronger relationship with OCB in public (␳ ϭ –. p Ͻ Table 2 Comparing Relationships of Role Stressors With OCB Versus Task Performance Role stressor and outcome Role ambiguity Task performance OCB Role conflict Task performance OCB Role overload Task performance OCB ␳ Ϫ. role overload had a stronger relationship with objective OCB measures (e. In support of Hypothesis 4a. these studies were included in the subsequent analyses. resulting in minimal change in fit.89. ns.32)..15.05) than supervisor-rated OCB (Z ϭ –2.001). which is consistent with Hypothesis 7c. Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) ϭ . we specified a correlation between role overload and OCB (Partial Mediation Model 3).15 Ϫ.08 Ϫ.19 8. and Table 4 reports the path analysis findings. p Ͻ . p Ͻ .12) and OCBI (␳ ϭ –. role conflict had a stronger relationship with OCB.29‫ءءء‬ . Q(23) ϭ 133. Z ϭ 3.27. As such. ⌬␹2(2) ϭ 35.12.001. returning surveys to help researchers.57.26) than supervisor-rated OCB (␳ ϭ –. Q(21) ϭ 103. Hypothesis 8b was not supported.21. Subgroup analyses revealed that role ambiguity had similar relationships with OCBO (␳ ϭ –. Q(18) ϭ 207.11. (2008). Z ϭ –5. Z ϭ 3.23). Consistent with Hypothesis 7a. Specifically. comparative fit index (CFI) ϭ . OCB ϭ organizational citizenship behavior. negative relationships with job satisfaction. Z ϭ 1.19) than OCBI (␳ ϭ –. respectively). and Z ϭ –2. it had a stronger relationship with OCBO (␳ ϭ –.001. publication status also moderated the role ambiguity–OCB relationship. Z ϭ –2..97. ‫ءءء‬ p Ͻ . role ambiguity and role conflict were found to have significant negative relationships with OCB. which is counter to Hypothesis 4b.17 Ϫ. role overload had a stronger relationship with self-rated OCB (␳ ϭ –. Discussion The current meta-analysis provided the first quantitative review of the relationships between role stressors and OCB. which led to a significant improvement in model fit.89. unpublished studies (␳ ϭ –.05.458 23.79. ␳ ϭ –.86. and for role overload.05. ⌬␹2(1) ϭ 2. Contrary to Hypothesis 8c. p Ͻ .14. we found that role ambiguity also had a stronger relationship with coworker-rated OCB (␳ ϭ –.or supervisor-rated OCB (Z ϭ –2.03.001. We then tested for partial mediation for role ambiguity and role conflict. Comparing Relationships of Role Stressors With OCB Versus Task Performance Table 2 summarizes the results of Z tests comparing the relative magnitudes of role stressor–performance relationships (role stressor–task performance estimates were taken from Gilboa et al.03. which is counter to Hypothesis 5a.02.22). p Ͻ .16.001).06 N 22.06). which supports Hypothesis 5b.257 1.08). Turning our attention to role conflict. The path coefficients supported that role ambiguity (␤ ϭ –.36. p Ͻ .22) than self. The general negative linkages between role ambiguity and conflict to OCB are presumably due to both role stressors representing a hindrance to employees’ ability to pursue their achievement goals at work (Gilboa et al. Role conflict also had a stronger association with OCB for employees in public organizations (␳ ϭ –. ␹2(3) ϭ 79. p Ͻ .14. Finally. and OCB was positively related to role overload (␤ ϭ . role conflict (␤ ϭ –.10 Ϫ.022 Z Ϫ6.11.296 6. In support of Hypothesis 7b.258 6. Examining the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction Table 3 presents the meta-analytic correlation matrix.10) than supervisor-rated OCB (␳ ϭ –.001). LePine et al.05). p Ͻ . negative relationship with OCB (␤ ϭ –.. the relationship was stronger for unpublished studies (␳ ϭ –. On the other hand.04.25) than published studies (␳ ϭ –.05).001.31) versus private organizations (␳ ϭ –..400 6. These results suggest that job satisfaction mediates the linkages of role stressors to OCB and that engaging in OCB is related to increases in employees’ perceived work overload.001).54. subgroup analyses revealed that only rating source and publication status were significant moderators for role overload– OCB relationships. Indeed.001. standardized root-mean residual (SRMR) ϭ . and role overload (␤ ϭ –. Z ϭ – 0. 2008). such that the direct paths from role ambiguity and conflict to OCB were freely estimated (Partial Mediation Model 1). Moderator Analyses The significant Q statistic for the relationships between all three role stressors and OCB indicated the presence of between-study moderators for these relationships: for role ambiguity. 2008. p Ͻ .13. p Ͻ . root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ϭ . Finally. The full mediation model had good fit with the data.14. ␳ ϭ estimate of corrected correlation.11) yielded stronger effect sizes than did published studies (␳ ϭ –. p Ͻ . . Z ϭ –2. The final model is illustrated in Figure 1. p Ͻ .62‫ءءء‬ 4. Finally. ⌬␹2(1) ϭ 45. Z ϭ –7.11. Interestingly. p Ͻ .15. role ambiguity had a stronger relationship with self-rated OCB (␳ ϭ –.49.95. role conflict had a stronger relationship with self-rated (␳ ϭ –.g.001).07) all had significant.05. N ϭ total number of subjects. Doing so resulted in a significant improvement in model fit.

Gilboa et al. such as approach Table 4 Nested Model Testing for Mediation Model Model Full mediation model Partial Mediation Model 1a Partial Mediation Model 2b Partial Mediation Model 3c ␹2 79.990 Ϫ.52 df 3 1 2 1 CFI ..g.. OCB). Zhao. N ϭ 8. The nonsignificant association between role overload and OCB is not completely surprising. role overload was unique in that its overall relationship with OCB was not significant and was much weaker than relationships of role ambiguity and conflict with OCB. On the other hand. 2 32. 2 Note. identifying characteristics that predispose employees to view overload as a challenge versus a hindrance.42a 54 11. Perhaps role ambiguity has a greater relationship with task performance because what counts as adequate task performance is less clear relative to OCB. 2009. which. 1993).001.89 44.15b 24 6. 1990).06b 19 6. as such. b Meta-analytic correlations from original analyses in the current article. Glibkowski.917.g. c Estimate the direct effect from role conflict to OCB and between role overload and OCB while the other path is held constant.626 EATOUGH. Role conflict k N 3.98 . (2008). Wayne. First. Lowering OCB represents a viable option to allocate resources for bargaining with various organizational constituents so that employees can resolve the discrepant demands.827 . further restricts the efforts they can devote to task performance.91 .16b 22 6. On the other hand.25c 19 6. CFI ϭ comparative fit index. which may also make them less susceptible to role ambiguity.851 Ϫ.02 . LePine et al. Future research ought to explore the dual nature of role overload by... In this case.. Second.62b 26 7.11‫ءءء‬. King & King. ‫ءءء‬ p Ͻ . & Bravo. Role ambiguity 2. they may also respond to role overload by increasing their motivation and efforts in order to meet all the demands. whereas the opposite was true for role conflict.05 . Moreover. had a more complex relationship with OCB.00 ⌬␹2.187 Ϫ. Several study characteristics emerged as significant moderators. Role overload.41b 34 11. Role overload k N 4. Job Satisfaction. Chang et al. TLI ϭ Tucker–Lewis index. and Role Overload The current meta-analytic results supported that each of the three role stressors—ambiguity.07 . particularly with regard to their linkages to important employee behaviors that have implications for both individual outcomes and organizational effectiveness. we discuss the implications of our findings.versus extra-role performance (e. however. Future studies should continue to examine how role ambiguity differs from role conflict (e. & Verbeke.99 1. role ambiguity had a stronger association with task performance than OCB. SRMR ϭ standardized root-mean residual. 1 77.458 — — — . .05 . RMSEA ϭ root-mean-square error of approximation. as role overload may be appraised as a stressor comprising both hindrance and challenge aspects (Boswell et al. role conflict places multiple and conflicting demands on employees that tax their coping resources (Bakker.205 Ϫ. CHANG. Their uniqueness is illustrated in several ways. AND JOHNSON Table 3 Meta-Analytic Correlations Between Role Stressors.01 .00 TLI .46a 52 11.508 Note. b Estimate the direct path from role conflict to OCB while the other paths are held constant..or extra-role. Demerouti. Organ.99 . conflict. MILOSLAVIC.695 Ϫ. role ambiguity represents more of an obstacle for employees who try to identify their task expectations. df 35. 2007). 2008.95 . Distinguishing Between Role Ambiguity. they opt to reduce OCB and expend whatever energy they have left on required job tasks. 2004. 1990).37‫ءءء‬. role overload had similar relationships with OCB and task performance.g.64 2. 2004. 1988).25‫ءءء‬.01 . Role Conflict. OCB k N 1 — . Thus. for example. and OCB Variable 1. a Estimate the direct paths from role ambiguity and role conflict to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) while the other path is held constant.. 2005). 2005). LePine et al. rather than blurring the line between in. however. a Meta-analytic correlations from Fried et al. Job satisfaction k N 5. overloaded employees may experience negative affect and reduce their performance levels.52a 71 16. although role ambiguity and conflict were both negatively related to OCB. are more likely to generalize across positions and organizations (Borman & Motowidlo. Chang et al.022 2 3 4 — — — .78 47.99 RMSEA . c Meta-analytic correlations from Hoffman et al. OCB ϭ organizational citizenship behavior. and overload— had unique patterns of relationships with employee performance and should be treated as distinctive stressors. these relationships is comparable to those of the relationships found between other hindrance stressors and OCB (e. (2007). Below.. employees may cope with role ambiguity by engaging in behaviors that they know are most likely to be evaluated favorably (viz. regardless of whether the demands are considered in.257 — — — Ϫ. All correlations were corrected for attenuation due to unreliability.. When resources are limited and employees can concentrate their efforts in only one direction.. perceptions of politics.32d 57 23. On the one hand. The duties and responsibilities that compose task performance are not obvious because in-role behaviors tend to be organization and position specific (Campbell. 2009. psychological contract breach. d Meta-analytic correlations from Örtqvist and Wincent (2006).95 . The behaviors that count as OCB.01 SRMR .

alternative models that capture the relationship patterns between role stressors and OCB and test the direction of the causal relationships with longitudinal. we contend that this highlights the importance of expanding the criterion domain of occupational stressors (Jex. may exist and explain the linkage between role conflict and OCB. 1994. such as OCB. 2001. Johnson & Chang. We found evidence supporting that the relationship between role ambiguity and OCB was fully mediated by job satisfaction. & Medina.ROLE STRESSORS AND OCB 627 Figure 1. role ambiguity and conflict both had a stronger relationship with OCB in public versus private organizations. Consistent with expectations.001. rating source. 1998) to include behaviors that are omitted in traditional performance appraisals. the distinctiveness between the three role stressors is also evident when examining job satisfaction as a mediator for the role stressor–OCB relationship. This is especially evident when it comes to some of the moderator analyses (e.. Bolino et al. Finally. For example. Alternatively.. which limits the causal inferences that can be drawn from the current results. sources is attributed to the company’s general failure to provide a unified. First. 2010). relationships tended to be stronger when OCB was self-reported. Kanfer & Ackerman. OCB engagement may place increased demands on employees. role overload can be viewed as both a hindrance and a challenge stressor that may have opposite linkages with OCB via low morale or high motivation. Future research should take into consideration where the samples are collected and focus on identifying the key mechanisms that explain the different associations. Second. for the other moderators. As mentioned earlier. This suggests that alternative mechanisms. Limitations and Conclusion There are four major limitations of the current study.. and publication status all influenced these relationships. This is consistent with the recent findings suggesting that that performing OCB can contribute to feelings of being overextended (Bolino & Turnley. the majority of the studies employed a cross-sectional design. 1989). On the other hand. Although we note that caution should be taken when interpreting the meta-analytic results based on only a few studies. which in turn is related to decrements in OCB. Future research examining this proposition—that the source of the role conflict is more global—is warranted.. 2005. job satisfaction. possibly because receiving incompatible messages from multiple . a positive relationship also existed between the two constructs. such as a lack of mental resources (e. Future research should consider more complex. All path coefficients are significant at p Ͻ . 2005). Results were less consistent. the number of empirical studies examining relationships between role stressors and OCB was relatively small compared with ones testing relationships between role stressors and task performance (Gilboa et al..g. results for publication status were inconsistent.g. we found that although job satisfaction mediated the negative relationship between role overload and OCB. Cho & Lee. OCBO suffered more than OCBI when role conflict was high. 2008). Munduate. and avoidance motivation (Carver & White. 2008). because unpublished studies yielded comparable or larger effect sizes for role stressor–OCB relationships than did published studies. suggesting that a lack of knowledge of what is expected of employees is associated with lower morale. clear set of guidelines for how to meet performance expectations. which may account for their stronger association with OCB observed here. It also hints at the value of utilizing alternative Moderators of Role Stressor–OCB Relationships Study characteristics were tested as moderators of the role stressor–OCB relationships. and organizational citizenship behavior. Guerra. the association between role conflict and OCB was only partially mediated by job satisfaction. rather than to any specific individuals. In line with expectations.g. previous studies have hinted that role ambiguity and conflict were more detrimental to the morale of public versus private sector employees (e. type of organization. Finally. Final model for relationships between role stressors. Also. cross-lagged data. This limitation points to the urgent need for conducting longitudinal primary studies to delineate the causal order for relationships between role stressors and OCB. Martinez. however. and OCB target. unpublished studies for the role conflict–OCB relationship). Finally. These findings suggest that the file-drawer problem had minimal impact on the results of this meta-analysis.

1993). 26. M. and individual factors related to helping processes at work. 58. 31. M. 83–104. (1994). Spitzmuller.. Academy of Management Review. S.1016/ S1053-4822(99)00041-8 Allen. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.. although more citizenship behaviors are typically considered beneficial from the organizational perspective (e.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2 Bateman. 641– 663.tb02500. C. R. & Bloodgood. Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. Personnel selection in organizations (pp. C. M. The relationship between work-related stress and work outcomes: The role of felt challenge and psychological strain. (2004). doi:10. Charlin.3. J. 2010). better.13. rating source) were supported as moderators for effect sizes. Olson-Buchanan. I. J. (2000). (2002). Alternatively. Applied Psychology: An International Review. CA: Jossey-Bass.x Bakker.740 Bolino. Public versus private: Not that different...2. & Williams. S. E. 687–732). C. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. OCB. C. doi:10. (1998). (2010).CO. pp. Conducting meta-analysis using SAS.. Journal of Applied Psychology.81. 81. E. Ganster.. Using the job demand-resources model to predict burnout and performance.g.4. S.1016/S0001-8791(03)00049-6 Campbell. 97–114. & Motowidlo. work–family conflict. A.. N. Jr. Work stressors and coworker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. M. 83.1177/ 0092070303255636 *Bolino. 64.635 Borman.. 740 –748. & Crooker. Citizenship under pressure: What’s a “good soldier” to do? Journal of Organizational Behavior. For example. & Miller. and work–family conflict. M. & Snell. 247–260. (2007). & LePine. Spitzmuller. A. 274 –303. although we found support that job satisfaction mediated relationships between role stressors and OCB.” Academy of Management Journal. C. Boswell. (1987). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Journal of Organizational Behavior. (2004). 16. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. 31. C. Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. M. 505–522. Carlson. J.282 .. *Bettencourt. P.211 Carver. job.. Future research that explores relationships between role stressors and OCB using alternative methodologies is needed. and rewarding employee performance properly are practices that enhance employee satisfaction and. (2009). & Huffcutt. D. low cognitive resources. & Turnley. S. W. (2000).g.. B. V. 2009)..232 Bass. A.1464-0597. Consequences of positive and negative feedback: The impact on emotions and extra-role behaviors. Bolino et al. we found two studies that used an experimental or quasi-experimental design with objective OCB measures (e. M. M. doi:10.2. D. pressure to engage in OCB may have unintended negative consequences for individual employees (e.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200006)21:4Ͻ 391::AID-JOB15Ͼ 3. Leadership: Good. W. & Stuebing. W... 232–243.628 EATOUGH. additional pathways (e.55. in turn. L. 13. doi: 10.. a large amount of variance in correlations remained unexplained. D. W. B. (2005). S. (1985). M.1002/job. Stacy. Journal of Applied Psychology. S. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. Journal of Applied Psychology. behavioral activation. especially role ambiguity and conflict. doi:10. doi:10.. MILOSLAVIC. Gilstrap. & Jex. doi:10. C. job satisfaction) in order to encourage OCB. W. For example.. & White.. M.. Creating a feedback-rich environment at work (see Steelman. & Organ. Schaubroeck.1037/0022-3514. & Suazo. S..3. 394 – 408. M.90.1037/ 0021-9010. (1983).1002/hrm. This study underscores the negative associations that role stressors have not only with task performance but also with OCB as well. Public Personnel Management. 1078 –1095. Barnard. although some between-study characteristics (e. Ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: Does the source make a difference? Human Resource Management Review. Palo Alto. & Murray. Levy. Interpersonal. M. In N.247 *Anderson. 181–193. returning a survey voluntarily to help the researchers). Organizational citizenship and mood: An experimental test of perceived job breadth. W.. Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Dunnette & L.00336. (1993). doi:10. W. 1990.2307/255908 Beehr. As such.. Jex. D. N. 55.). (1988). Allen. Bachrach. B. doi:10.20004 Baldwin. W. CHANG. 27. B. (1996). D. Journal of Vocational Behavior. & Stuebing.g. A.x Bergeron. 71–98).2-9 Belschak. Borman (Eds. & Verbeke. J. In M. & Den Hartog. Turnley. 43. Turnley. 1. Bennett.... Too stressed out to participate? Examining the relation between stressors and survey response behavior. M. Role stressors and customeroriented boundary-spanning behaviors in service organizations. adopting fair decision-making procedures. T. employers could target the process variable (viz. Organizational Dynamics. 587–595. T. The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. A. & Ditman. Ways of doing so may involve ensuring that employees are provided with clearly defined descriptions of job duties and expectations. T. future work should explore boundary conditions for the associations between role stressors and OCB.g. T. 26 – 40. M. Mahwah. doi:10. (2008). Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. This suggests that additional moderators are responsible for between-study differences in effect size.. negative effects on OCB (e.. 30. M. Thus.. best. 1994). (2000). 211–229. Sime. Finally. H..g. F. doi:10. and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: designs.. N. Jr. C. N.. 21.. doi:10. D. employers wishing to encourage more OCB may want to consider steps to reduce role stressors. S.. H. K.g. doi:10.1111/j. Barr. not that consequential. (1990). intention to quit. providing high organizational support..83. Thus.1037/1076-8998. Podsakoff et al.2008. The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review. 165–181. AND JOHNSON Arthur. Hui. doi:10.1037/0021-9010. 10. doi:10. D.). Third. 391– 405. 2004) may be particularly effective because inadequate access to needed information is a root cause of both role ambiguity and conflict (King & King. D. and they both showed that role overload had large..1111/j. On the other hand. The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload.. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 835– 855. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.1037/0021-9010. 13.. K. Kanfer & Ackerman. We conclude the article by discussing some practical implications of our meta-analytic findings. W. P. *Barr. T. & Russell.0 . 282–296.2000. Thus. companies should be aware of the possible reciprocal relationship between OCB and role overload. 90.. Demerouti. Organ. References References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis. 32. M.2307/4134400 *Bolino. G. Hough (Eds. (2003).15591816. A. C. Schmitt & W. doi:10. A.. (2001). D. Rush. & Rush. J. a delicate balance exists for organizations to adopt practices that can encourage OCB while taking into account the overall well-being of the individual employees. Human Resource Management. C. J. & Brown. NJ: Erlbaum. Behavioral inhibition. B.. 2008. job stress. H. L. L. J. San Francisco.. 1989) may exist to explain these relationships.

G.. 305–328. C. *Janssen. doi:10. Serving multiple masters: Role conflict experienced by service employees. J. D. J. 64. doi:10. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. (2007). T.... S. 399 – 414). M.. (2006). D.1016/0749-5978(85)90020-2 *Jain. Comparison of two random-effects methods of meta-analysis.1023/A: 1015190007468 Fletcher.1108/08876040210419424 Conway. psychological distress.1037/a0013932 Gilboa. L. 52. F. Apples and oranges (and pears. G. Rosen. A..1111/ j. R. 100. attitudes. 14. (2004).. emotion regulation. Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature.1080/ 13594320444000245 Halbesleben.. S. J. J. doi:10.. 92.1016/j. 415– 439.00599. (2004).780 Cheung. T.. Fried. D. A. Organ. doi: 10.. K... B.1108/eb028929 *Chu.).1111/ j. D. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2006).. B.1177/0013164408315263 *Chiaburu... S. M. M. 197–208. S. D. 102. Shirom. New York. (2009).. & Yang. I. B. How do coworkers matter? Examining influences on peers’ role definitions. K. B.. Y. & Schmidt. L. L.. M. A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects.. N. J. & Medina.2005. Academy of Management Journal. 16. Cooper & I. D. 49. doi:10.1037/00219010. 278 –285. Personnel Psychology. Management Decision. C.-S. & Schneider. & Baldry. B. International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. (1994). [Working paper]. 157–176.1177/1094428103257358 De Cremer. J. T. The Gore report on reinventing government: Creating a government that works better and costs less. 84 –102. Munduate. Ilies. Journal of Social Psychology. Psychological Reports. Human Performance. P. & Levy. Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate. (1999).. Kacmar. S. M.. doi:10. Journal of Applied Psychology. W. Walters. M. Robertson (Eds. S. strain. E. M. J. 61.x *Chung. Tabata. Unpublished manuscript.. (2007). doi:10.1177/0013164403258454 Fried. Scott. 780 –791.ROLE STRESSORS AND OCB The BIS/BAS scales. and performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hauppauge. Seipel. and organizational citizenship behavior: A laboratory experiment. A. D. 87. Kuroda. doi:10. W.-H. 10. M. and self-ratings. 331–360. A. L. D. & Brannick.89. M. NY: Nova Science. Thousand Oaks..jbusres. & Giga. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology.. (1993). B. Unpublished manuscript. 70 – 87. R. 14. L. doi:10. 16 –78. A. R. 29 –38. A.. A. Hall. 67. J. (2008... D. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Martinez. E. M. and strain among hospital employees. K. peer.1207/s15327043hup1004_2 Cortina. supervisor. E. A.1037/0021-9010. (2002). I. C. 23. K.-H.-S.2005.-Q. Cooper. Type A syndrome.002 *Dysvik. 760 –777. Shimazu. DC. Time pressure. H. J. doi:10. and Health Conference. C.. (2003). NY: Random House. Work stress. 561–575. Hunter. job control. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. Organizational justice. 779 – 801. & Tubre ´ . Antecedents and consequences of real-time affective reactions at work. A contingency perspective on the study of the consequences of conflict types: The role of organizational culture. C. K. Poster presented at the 23rd annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. CA. & Crooker. Work & Stress.obhdp. A. 305– 325. doi:10. Unpublished manuscript. J.555 *Hui. & Judge. oh my!): The search for moderators in meta-analysis. I. L. Journal of Services Marketing. The interactive effects of job demands.. Meriac. (2005). J. *Foote. April). & Lee. I. pp.1108/00251740510581920 *Fortunato. S. N.1744-6570.. A.278 Harris. S.92. D.. T. (2005).5. Wallace.. R. M. 9. NY: Wiley. A. doi:10.1007/s00420-009-0485-7 Jackson. Journal of Applied Psychology.. C. & Chan. 319 –333. J. CA: Sage. (2009).. A. and behavior: A meta-analytic examination. The impact of perceived organizational support on the relationship of organizational stress and organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Emotional strain and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analytic review.1037/0022-3514. C. J. K. A comparison of the construct validity of three measures of negative affectivity. C. Lee. A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Oslo.. O. 75.1037/0021-9010.. 59. 92. 89. P. A. (2008). 203–219. & Groth. Paper presented at the 2008 Work.1. Stress. Norway. (2001). and job outcomes: An empirical analysis. State College. M. (2010). Kawakami. 377–389. & Sawitzky. Cheung. 149 –193). Educational and Psychological Measurement.. K..87.1977. San Francisco. H. (2005). Johnson. S..67. 83. Johnson.. E. Boulanger.06.. & Roth. 231–249. (2002).9713265 Harrison. . C. doi:10.2008. S.1525-1446.. (2006).. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health.. & Schuler. G.-H. (2004). C. 36. Another look at public–private distinction and organizational commitment: A cultural explanation. and job stress on role-based performance. (2006). doi: 10. Motivation and Emotion. In D. C. M. Handbook of organizational citizenship behavior: A review of “good soldier” activity in organizations (pp.. & Cooper. Y. How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Dependent effect sizes in metaanalysis: Incorporating the degree of interdependence. Tsuchiya. (2001). . T. & Shaw. Newman.. & Woehr. M. 199 –208. 21. 407– 415. (1997). doi:10. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. C.10. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear . F. Norwegian School of Management.1037/0021-9010. (2007). Multi-source feedback systems: A research perspective. J. and work engagement in Japanese workers. Journal of Business Research. 49. (2009). D. Employee commitment and organizational policies.377 Harris. A. Effects of another person’s fair treatment on one’s own emotions and behaviors: The moderating role of how much the other cares for you. doi: 10. M. & Huffcutt. D. Public Health Nursing.92. Ishizaki. F. M. K.. The mediating effects of job satisfaction and propensity to leave on role stress–job 629 performance relationships: Combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. 68. 15.003 *Harris. S. Hoffman.2. 312–332. Cho.. S. 43. Effects of altruism on mood.00113. Shirom. A. Zivnuska. .). & Licata. Educational and Psychological Measurement. International Journal of Stress Management. L. The impact of social support and job stress on public health nurses’ organizational citizenship behaviors in rural Taiwan. Role stressors. & Bowler. (2006). Organizational Research Methods. C. Academy of Management Journal. Dependent correlations in metaanalysis: The case of heterogeneous dependence. March). (2009). L.2.1080/02678370701758124 Chang.x Gore.. *Grandey. A.. K. A.. Washington.-H. *Fisher. B.). C. 26. & Hsu. doi:10. & Cooper. 555–566. Blair. W. service worker job resourcefulness. Gilboa. OCBs.1016/j. 271–289. & Duffy. (2002). (1977). C. The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes. doi:10. L. doi:10. New York. V. PA. *Ehrhart. 3–30. (2008. The Pennsylvania State University. B. Organizational citizenship behaviors and burnout. Walsh. *Inoue. (2008).. Academy of Management Journal. Artis. doi:10.. Turnipseed (Ed.. (2008). 227–271. (1985). More helping ϭ more stress? It depends on who you are.319 Chang. C. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed. doi:10. The impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness.1080/00224545. Peyton.. (2009). F. E. 496 –505. & Van Hiel.. Cullen.2006.. S. doi:10.2. Guerra. In C.. & Chan. B. The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. doi:10. *Edwards. 6. J..

Work & Stress. & MacKenzie.1037/00219010. 179 –185. and job attitudes in salespeople? Journal of Applied Psychology. P. 209 –237. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. L. 141–155. J. 911–924. Griffin. Lexington. Journal of Applied Psychology. P. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor– hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. E. D. New York.x Pasupuleti. F. and Crocker (1994). AND JOHNSON ior and Human Decision Processes. Griffin. & Paine. L. K. 14.. L. G.1080/03643100902988141 Perrewe ´ . C. R. and perfor- relationships between job demands. P. NY: Basic Books. Psychological Bulletin. 82. D.2307/ 1251745 MacKenzie. & Ahearne. G. H. Journal of Applied Psychology.1037/00219010. Adams. Kalleberg. T. (2009). Personnel Psychology. J. and job performance and job dissatisfaction. M. R. *Jex. C. D. J.1..8. job performance. An examination of perceived organizational support as a multidimensional construct in the context of an expatriate assignment. (2003). 50. Sprigg.1744-6570. A. M. Personnel Psychology. Time pressure.. Development and validation of a work-based regulatory focus scale... doi:10. 45– 64. 13... Organ. P. S. Lindblom. 13. New York. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. D. & Johnson. S.. (1999). 657– 690.4. Do citizenship behaviors matter more for managers than for salespeople? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. (1993). Podsakoff.. & Lu... A. Role conflict and role ambiguity: A critical assessment of construct validity. (1977). R. doi:10.2. Rossi.. A. doi:10. A.. Podsakoff. M.. Liu. W. (1978).tb00126.. 689 –719. & Hui. S. 13. E. CHANG. B. 30. research. New York. M. 77. Relations between stressors and group perceptions: Main and mediating effects. Organizational cynicism: Extending the exit. B. Ferris. & Rich. 94. & Sorenson. 122–141. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time.. Podsakoff. Psychological Reports. 7–19. K.00230. S. A. Some possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. MA: Lexington Books.1744-6570. Zellars. The impact of situational constraints. doi: 10. 695– 699. & LePine. doi:10. M.1002/ job. & Blume.107. L. A. doi:10. On the efficacy of credibility intervals as indicators of moderator effects in meta-analytic research. The Journal of Marketing. (1993). O. D.. Individual. San Francisco. (1998). D. Metaanalysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes. & Chang. K. 396 – 410.. A.630 EATOUGH... T. J. S.. CA: Sage. M.. A.01. .. (1993). S. 10. Supervisor behaviors. Ahearne. Work and Occupations. 17. 8. L. (1999). (1990).. C. D. Marsden.. (1996). J. & Knoke. & MacKenzie. 158 –169. and commitment on employee altruism. P. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. 6. doi:10. Paper presented at the 23rd annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 123–150. Podsakoff. Podsakoff. (1997).4030140708 *Kraimer.2006. S. Organizational Behav- .1080/0267837031000146804 Johnson. (1989).48 *Klein. B. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. (2006) Prominent consequences of role stress: A meta-analytic review. Organ. W. S. D. Reynolds. role stressors and uncertainty as predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Academy of Management Journal. Kellough. P.1111/ j. M.14640597. W.1177/ 0092070399274001 *MacKenzie. doi:10. doi:10. S. & Wayne. S. & Kahn. doi:10. L. doi:10.. Review of Public Personnel Administration.262 *Podsakoff. Work & Stress. T...1037/0033-2909.. . An examination of substitutes for leadership within a levels-of-analysis framework. MacKenzie.x Örtqvist.1037/1076-8998.74.2002.1002/job.1111/j. (1995). doi:10. Journal of Applied Psychology. The impact of work stressors on the life satisfaction of social service workers: A preliminary study. 107.. . L.52 LePine. M. Hochwarter. G. Whiting. (2005).10. 48 – 64. M. & Hart. 764 –775. L. S. Parker. & Beehr.1037/1072-5245.2307/3069447 Jex. Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude–treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition.001 *Ladebo.911 Koslowsky. and neglect model of employees’ responses to adverse conditions in the workplace.. M. Allen. 33. role perceptions. & Thomas. P. doi:10.x LePine. N. J.. N. H. 60. Journal of Organizational Behavior.1995.399 Osborne. 55. 171–180.1. B.1207/ s15327043hup1002_2 *Organ.. doi:10. 319 –339.. R. B. E.82. B. M.. A. J. A... P. W. B. M. M. A. Kacmar. 52– 65. Perceptions of organisational politics: Examination of consequences among Nigeria’s extension personnel. D. NY: Plume/Penguin. doi:10. 289 –328. W. Stress and job performance: Theory. 271–302. (1991). 87–98. Human Relations. W. & Cluse-Tolar. B. doi: 10.. C. Journal of Organizational Behavior. & Verbeke. doi:10. B. (1994).. doi:10. & Fetter. & Sagie. M. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. (1998). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. 683–718. E. I. M.. Personality and organizational health: The role of conscientiousness. T. doi:10. Journal of Applied Psychology.84.. Podsakoff.1177/0730888406290049 Kanfer... von Iterson. 1039 –1050. (2007). S. Y. S. Journal of Management. V. M. Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance.1080/026783799296156 *Naus. & Ackerman. M... D. 85–97. *MacKenzie. 399 – 422.. Autonomic feedback in stressful environments: How do individual differences in autonomic feedback relate to burnout.657 Katz. G. Lambert.1111/j. P. (1997). W. & Wincent. 775– 802. (2003). & Ryan. Administration in Social Work.. (2002). and organizational citizenship behavior: A field study replication of Hui. 62. 10.3.1037/a0013079 Podsakoff. MILOSLAVIC. 84. 87. A. J. D. 44. A. (2009). Political skill: An antidote in the role overload–strain relationship. doi:10.171 *Jex. (1995). G. doi:10. doi:10. Academy of Management Journal. A. Leadership Quarterly. & Bommer.1037/00219010.1177/ 03079459994506 *Miller. E. 74.1016/j. P. J. (1999).239 Podsakoff. Thousand Oaks. R. International Journal of Stress Management. D. doi: 10.2003. 27.and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. S.13. voice.1016/07495978(91)90037-T MacKenzie. C. (2006). The paradox of merit pay in the public sector. & Wall. 255–281.6. Politics and markets. 29. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. P. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. (2006). 262–270.1016/1048-9843(95)90011-X Podsakoff. doi:10. R. P. (1995).4. Erez. W. loyalty. R. 55.. (1988). (2004). 33. Effect of temporary contracts on perceived work characteristics and job strain: A longitudinal study. & Gaebler. A.-H. Type A syndrome. Applied Psychology: An International Review. P.tb01781. doi:10. M.. S.. D. Organ. A. M. role stressors.87.. NY: Wiley. P. M.1037/1076-8998. Human Performance. M. doi:10. 48. D.4030150204 Organ. & Roe. 115–134.. (2002). CA. 48. & King... R. Beyond profit? Sectoral differences in high-performance work practices. doi:10.). doi:10. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector.1177/0734371X9301300204 King. 239 –250. April). (2001)..3. W. (2008. 15. P.1177/0018726707079198 O’Driscoll. (2005). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed. and implications for management practice..1037/ 0021-9010.

W. The emotional implications of organizational politics: A process model.1995. H. S. Ones. & Fetter. A.1.1993. (1979). doi:10.1. (1990). P. P. M. doi:10.-Y. M. 64. hybrid sector. J. Facilitating and inhibiting effects of job control and social support on stress outcomes and role behavior: A contingency model. Unpublished manuscript.. Employee self-enhancement motives and job performance behaviors: Investigating the moderating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment.1023/A:1012268705059 Viswesvaran. 1. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management. 865– 885. doi:10.00087. doi:10. methods. (1993). Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’ procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. M.638 Rosenthal. R. S. J. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. J.1744-6570. 82–111. 34. S. & Vandenberghe. S. Journal of Management. 1.. Takeuchi. J. Dahling. Meta-analysis and the exploration of causal mediating processes: A primer of examples. J. 46. G.81. & Levy. S. 557–574. J..88. S.. C. M. and issues. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1997).. & Lirtzman. M. Podsakoff.1111/j.. K. 92.x (Appendix follows) .2007. W. (1991). & Anderson. (1983). O. C. [Working paper]. W. R. MacKenzie. (2007). (2003).86.. Journal of Advanced Nursing. doi:10. Niehoff.1016/1048-9843(93)90002-B Podsakoff.3.1993. P. B. 11..tb00865. Personnel Psychology.. CA: Sage.tb01784.1177/0013164403258440 Stordeur. doi:10. & Koslowsky. (1993). A. & Taylor.. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.x *Schaubroeck. 27–57.x *Tate. B. doi:10. *Rosen. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.1177/0018726708099836 Rosenthal.2307/30040679 *Tompson.66 Sagie. 167– 195. 26. 48. & Sackett. J. PA. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.745 Zhao. 4. 75.4. E.x Viswesvaran. 40. August).2001. D. P. *Whitaker. (1996).CO. Organizational citizen- 631 ship behavior: Its nature and antecedents.. Detecting moderators with metaanalysis: An evaluation and comparison of techniques. P. (1993). (2000). 1– 40. MacKenzie. New insights into the mechanisms that link stressors to voluntary work behaviors. 86. Human Relations. E. & Liu. B. B. Leadership. (1970). Rotundo. Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. H. 1– 44. C.. E.01885.1037/0021-9010. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes..1037/1076-8998.92. doi: 10. 68. S. & Ditman. and job performance. D’hoore. L.2307/3380953 *Yun.. MacKenzie.557 Wayne. doi:10.3. R. J.27 Smith. doi: 10. 123–136. C. 647– 680.. Organ. & Kacmar. KY. doi:10. S. R. Harris. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Bachrach. The impact of role conflict/facilitation on core and discretionary behaviors: Testing a mediated model. C. B. 629 – 640. 14. 150 –163. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Personnel Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology.87. Journal of Applied Psychology.47 Siegrist. doi:10. 369 –383.. The development of a feedback environment and role clarity model of job performance.. doi:10. and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach.1744-6570..1037/0021-9010. (2007. A. A. B. M. Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Morehead State University. doi:10. Personnel Psychology. B. & Collins. Cynicism as a fundamental dimension of moral decision-making: A scale development. Journal of Business Ethics. B. doi:10. Journal of Applied Psychology. Tepper. C. P.1111/j. & Snell.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199803)19:2Ͻ167::AID-JOB831Ͼ3 . J. B.. (1997).. J. B. J.13652648. A.2307/2391486 *Rodopman. Journal of Management. Philadelphia. S.1037/0021-9010. S.2-T Schaubroeck. Academy of Management Journal. doi:10.. & Schmidt. 879 –903.. 745–756. Journal of Management. Lee.1006/obhd.. Substitutes for leadership and the management of professionals. C. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors...4. doi:10.... M. organizational stress. R.ROLE STRESSORS AND OCB mance.. & Podsakoff. 15. Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. & Liden. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.1. Public Productivity & Management Review. 46. A matter of motive: The role of choice in the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and work–family conflict.. Sime.1.tb00888. Levy. 26. S. P. & Werner. (2009). S. Psychological Methods.0. Administrative Science Quarterly. J. D.. K. doi: 10.. The Feedback Environment Scales (FES): Construct definition. M.81. P. D. 35. P. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.5. Wayne. 17.. J. & Ones. 33. F.68. doi:10. Personnel Psychology. & Hui. 23..1111/j. The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A metaanalysis..1744-6570.. J. 1– 44.380 *Podsakoff. Leadership Quarterly. A field experiment testing supervisory role clarification.75. & Bravo. 66 – 80.653 Steelman. House.x Shadish. C. L. M. (2001). (2001).1111/j. P.315 Williams..1046/j. doi:10. R. (1998).1177/ 014920639101700305 Wittmer.2307/257021 *Whitaker. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60.1016/S0149-2063(97)90049-0 Tubre ´ .. citizenship. 27– 41. doi:10. 88.1177/0149206306297581 Whitener. J.1016/S0149-2063(99)00035-5 *Turner. MacKenzie. J. 97–105. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 87. J.1037/00332909. Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity. (1995). M.. 653– 663.. (1996). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. (1991). G. & Fink. E.. doi:10. doi:10.1001 Rizzo. 81. Do substitutes for leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr and Jermier’s situational leadership model. Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward preferences among government. (2009). (2000).. (2007). (1993). The relative importance of task. R. doi:10.879 Podsakoff.3. Journal of Management. F. D. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Williams. S. 62.1.1037/0021-9010. I. Newbury Park. B. and emotional exhaustion among hospital nursing staff. (2009). 54.1993. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. 1–25. 315–321. Theory testing combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. 583–601. doi:10. T. B. 19. Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. 155–169. role conflict. E. 533–542. J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. doi:10. Paine. R.1177/ 014920630002600307 *Podsakoff. C. doi:10. (2007).. M. C..17446570. M.5. C. R. 570 –591. L. Morehead. 165–184. M. D.. 47– 65. 638 – 641. L. R. 601– 617. S. P. Journal of Management. (2004). 81. G. Ganster. C.1037/00219010. W. Academy of Management Journal.1037/1082-989X. N. and business managers. H. D. S. 380 –399. W. (1991). Psychological Bulletin. measurement and validation. & Valentine. (2002). 46.. L. (2003). J. Glibkowski. Shore. (1993). doi:10. (1996). & Near. 513–563. L. MacKenzie. B. J. D.

36 Ϫ. OCBI.16 Ϫ. OCBO . Podsakoff.07 . 2009 Revision received October 13.41 Ϫ.17 Ϫ. M. (2007) Yun et al.06 Ϫ.07 Ϫ. Niehoff.01 Ϫ. MILOSLAVIC. OCBO Supervisor Supervisor Coworker Supervisor Supervisor Self Self Self Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Publication status Published Published Published Published Published Published Unpublished Published Published Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Unpublished Published Published Published Unpublished Published Published Published Unpublished Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Published Unpublished Published Published Unpublished Published Published Unpublished Published Published Ϫ.12 Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Ϫ. OCBO OCBI. OCBO Public Private Moderator coding Organization type Public Private Private Rater Supervisor Objective Supervisor Supervisor Spouse Self Coworker Self Self Self Self Supervisor Supervisor Self Self Self Self Supervisor Objective Self Self Supervisor Supervisor Self Self Supervisor Self Supervisor Supervisor Self Self Friend Supervisor Private Private Public Private Private OCBI.21 .09 Ϫ.11 . J. OCBO OCBO OCBO OCBO OCBO OCBO Ϫ.21 Ϫ.21 Ϫ.18 Ϫ. OCBI. OCBO OCBO OCBI OCBI OCBI. (2009) Schaubroeck & Fink (1998) Tate (2009) Tompson & Werner (1997) Turner & Valentine (2001) Whitaker (2009) Whitaker et al.44 Ϫ.30 .35 Type Calculated Extracted Extracted Calculated Extracted Role conflict r .05 Ϫ.05 Ϫ.18 Ϫ.01 Ϫ.19 Ϫ.25 Ϫ.02 Calculated .11 Extracted .18 Calculated Extracted Calculated Calculated Extracted OCBO OCBI. et al.21 Extracted Extracted Extracted Extracted Extracted Calculated Extracted Calculated .03 Extracted Extracted Extracted Extracted Extracted Extracted OCBI OCBI OCBI OCBI OCBO OCBI. (1994) Inoue et al.49 Ϫ.06 Ϫ. OCBO OCBI.03 Calculated Calculated Extracted Calculated Extracted Extracted Calculated Extracted Calculated Extracted Extracted OCBI. Extracted effect sizes indicate that effect sizes were taken directly from the study. (2001) Miller et al. (2010) Chiaburu (2009) Chu et al.25 Ϫ.51 . (2007) r .07 Ϫ. MacKenzie.33 Ϫ.14 .13 Ϫ. AND JOHNSON Appendix Summary of Studies Included in the Current Meta-Analysis and Coding for Moderators Role ambiguity Study Anderson & Williams (1996) Barr et al. OCBO OCBI.07 Ϫ.45 Ϫ.11 Extracted Extracted Calculated Extracted Ϫ.632 EATOUGH. M.10 Ϫ. (1993) Rodopman (2007) Rosen et al.01 Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Ϫ. 2010 Accepted October 14.36 Ϫ. (2003) Jex & Thomas (2003) Klein & Verbeke (1999) Kraimer & Wayne (2004) Ladebo (2006) MacKenzie et al. (2009) Ehrhart et al. OCBO Private Private Public Public Public Private Private Private Public Public Private Private Public Private Private Public Private Role overload r Ϫ. CHANG.00 Ϫ.16 . (2008) Janssen (2001) Jex et al. OCBI. whereas authors calculated effect sizes using the adjustedweighted approach. (2007) Hui et al.05 Ϫ.11 Ϫ.34 Type Calculated Extracted Extracted .07 . OCBO OCBI.08 Ϫ. 2010 Ⅲ .07 Ϫ.14 Type Extracted Calculated OCB type OCBI OCBO OCBO OCBO OCBI.21 . (1998) MacKenzie et al.13 Ϫ. Podsakoff. (1999) Naus et al. M. Podsakoff & MacKenzie (1995) P. OCBI and OCBO ϭ organizational citizenship behavior targeted at the individual (OCBI) or organization (OCBO). OCBI. (2007) Organ & Hui (1995) P. (2010) Jain et al.26 Extracted Calculated Extracted Extracted Extracted Calculated Extracted Ϫ.12 Ϫ. (2005) Fortunato (2004) Grandey & Groth (2009) K. (2008) Fisher (2002) Foote et al. & Fetter (1993) P. (2008) Bettencourt & Brown (2003) Sample 1 Bettencourt & Brown (2003) Sample 2 Bolino & Turnley (2005) Bolino et al.05 Ϫ. OCBI.28 Ϫ. Harris et al.15 Ϫ.38 Extracted Extracted Calculated Note. OCBO OCBI OCBO OCBI.08 Ϫ.03 Ϫ. Received October 12.32 Ϫ.21 Ϫ. (2006) Chung & Schneider (2002) Dysvik (2009) Sample 1 Dysvik (2009) Sample 2 Edwards et al.