Identity and the Extra Mile: Relationships

between Organizational Identication and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
Rolf van Dick,*
w
Michael W. Grojean,
w
Oliver Christ,
z
and Jan Wieseke*
*Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universita t Frankfurt,
w
Aston University,
z
Philipps-University Marburg
The current study investigates the relationship
between Organizational Identication and Orga-
nizational Citizenship Behaviour (e.g. helping
colleagues, making innovative suggestions). We
replicate earlier ndings of such a relationship
between those behaviours and organizational
identication using ten samples across dierent
occupational groups and countries in Study 1.
Study 2 investigates the relationship in a long-
itudinal approach. Study 3 looks into this
relationship on a group-level analysis while Study
4 extends our ndings by linking identication to
customer perceptions and nancial performance,
mediated by OCBs (Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours).
Introduction
This article deals with two constructs relevant to
employees organizational behaviour and organi-
zations performance, namely organizational
identication and organizational citizenship be-
haviour. The aim of the research presented in this
paper is to provide insight into the relationship
between these constructs. More specically, we
will rst establish a theoretical framework for the
proposed link between identication and organi-
zational citizenship behaviour. We will then test
this relationship in a meta-analysis across dier-
ent occupations and cultural contexts (Study 1),
will investigate the causal direction using cross-
lagged panel analysis (Study 2), provide a team-
level analysis of the relationship (Study 3) and
nally link it to nancial performance and test
customer perceptions (Study 4).
Since the early 1990s, personnel psychologists
have become increasingly interested in the multi-
dimensional nature of job performance (e.g.
Campbell, 1990; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler
and Sager, 1992; Ilgen and Hollenbeck, 1991).
Specically, Campbell et al. (1992) identied
eight possible job performance dimensions; some
of which focus on more technical prociency
aspects of performance (e.g. job specic task
prociency; written and oral communication task
prociency; management/administration) and
some that focus on the more psycho-social
aspects of performance (e.g. demonstrating
eort; maintaining personal discipline; facilitat-
ing peer and team performance).
This expansion of performance into the social
realm of the job was also theorized by Borman
and Motowidlo (1993). In particular, Borman
and Motowidlo (1993) proposed that indivi-
dual performance can be categorized into either
task performance or contextual performance.
Task performance refers to those core technical
functions of individual behaviour within an
organization. Contextual performance is dened
as the elements of individual performance that
serve to maintain the broad social, organizational
and psychological environment in which the core
technical functions must operate.
Interestingly, this conceptual enlargement of
the job performance domain occurred almost
simultaneously with a resurgence of interest in the
This article was accepted for publication by Gerard P.
Hodgkinson on 8 September 2006 following two revisions.
British Journal of Management, Vol. 17, 283301 (2006)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00520.x
r 2006 British Academy of Management
role that job attitudes (e.g. satisfaction, organiza-
tional commitment, positive aect) play in work
performance. Specically, job satisfaction has
received substantial attention due to the long and
widely held popular belief that job satisfaction is
positively related to job performance. Indeed, it
was a general failure to nd such a relationship (or
in some cases, a much weaker than expected
relationship) that led Organ to posit that perhaps
job satisfaction was related to an aspect of
work performance that is not directly reected in
the kind of performance typically measured by
researchers. From this inference of multi-dimen-
sionality of job performance, Organ began an
exploration of what he termed the Good Soldier
Syndrome or organizational citizenship behaviour
(1988) as it has come to be known.
While organizational citizenship behaviour has
proven fruitful for theoretical discussion and
provided substantive support for the concept that
job performance is a multi-dimensional con-
struct, there has been little support to suggest
that attitudes or (or even personality) play a
signicant role in predicting the non-task specic
elements of job performance. Indeed, this has
proven vexing to researchers as they attempt to
unravel the nature of the antecedents of non-task
specic job performance. We propose that
organizational identication is an important
antecedent to organizational citizenship beha-
viour and we will use the Social Identity
Approach as a theoretical framework to under-
stand the link between identication and OCB.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
In 1964, Katz stated that three basic types of
behaviour are essential for a functioning organi-
zation. First, people must be induced to enter and
remain within the organization. Second, they
must carry out specic task requirements in a
dependable fashion and third, there must be
innovative and spontaneous activity that goes
beyond the specic task requirements. In general,
organizational citizenship as envisioned by Organ
seems to correspond to this third type of
behaviour. While there is now consensus on the
label and nature of the construct tapping Katzs
third basic behaviour, this has not always been
true. The construct has at times been labelled and
operationalized as organizational citizenship be-
haviour (Organ, 1988), organizational sponta-
neity (George and Jones, 1997), pro-social orga-
nizational behaviours (Brief and Motowidlo,
1986) and contextual performance (Borman and
Motowidlo, 1993).
In its original conceptualization, Organ (1988)
dened organizational citizenship behaviours
(OCBs) as extra-role behaviours that were non-
rewarded and in the aggregate promoted the
eective functioning of an organization. Organ
restricted OCBs to extra role behaviours because
to be a reection of Katzs (1964) innovation and
spontaneous behaviour, OCBs had to be volun-
tary and could not be part of the formal
requirements of a job. Since OCBs were concep-
tually limited to voluntary behaviours, Organ
eliminated any behaviours that were formally
rewarded from the conceptual space dening his
construct since any behaviour that is formally
rewarded becomes part of the employee
employer contractual agreement and thus, be-
comes part of required task performance. Also, in
keeping with Katzs original conceptualization,
OCBs had to be those behaviours that in the
aggregate are benecial and contribute to
the ecient functioning of an organization.
While a worker could help his/her fellow employ-
ees, it would be considered an OCB only if it
ultimately contributed to the organizations
functioning.
Research, however, has shown that this deni-
tion is too limiting. For example, Morrison
(1994) found that the way an employees role is
dened aects whether the employee will perceive
a behaviour as being required or not. Specically,
employees that broadly dene their roles are
more likely to see OCBs as part of their job
requirements. The limitation of citizenship to
non-rewarded behaviours was also found to be
an unnecessary restriction of the construct. These
and other ndings convinced Organ to reassess
his conceptualization of OCBs, suggesting that
OCBs and contextual performance appear to be
near synonymous (Organ, 1997). Within the
present study, we consider OCB as an encom-
passing concept to be reective of both the
narrower denition by Organ and the broader
conceptualization of Borman and Motowidlo.
For the context of the present study, we dene
OCB as any discretionary individual extra-
role behaviour advantageous to the organization
(Turnipseed and Rassuli, 2005; see also Organ,
Podsako and MacKenzie, 2006, p. 3).
284 R. van Dick et al.
Antecedents of OCB
Given the interest and apparent utility to organiza-
tions regarding organizational citizenship, it is useful
to identify the antecedents of such performance.
Perceptions of leader supportiveness and follower
job satisfaction have been found to be positively
related to citizenship behaviour (Smith, Organ
and Near, 1983). Smith, Organ and Near (1983)
found that perceptions of leader support both
directly and indirectly aected the level of employee
altruism and compliance, two dimensions of OCBs.
In fact, they found that leader supportiveness
aected altruism through the mediating mechanism
of job satisfaction. Additionally, they found that
leader supportiveness directly aected employee
compliance levels.
In each of these examples, employee attitudes
were found to inuence subsequent organizational
citizenship. Indeed, as citizenship appears to consist
of discretionary behaviours, how the employee
perceives the organization (as evidenced by his/her
attitude toward it) would likely predispose this
employee to either perform or withhold such
performance. This has been addressed by Rioux
and Penner (2001) who have explored motivational
causes of OCB, conceptualized as individual
dierence variables, prosocial values, organiza-
tional concern, and impression management.
Organizational concern emerged as the motive
most closely related to OCB directed towards the
organization. Rioux and Penner (2001) state that
organizational concern motives appear to have
two interrelated components: a desire to help the
organization because one identies with and takes
pride in the organization . . . (p. 1312). Rioux and
Penner, however, have not measured whether the
organizational concern motive was indeed related
or driven by identication. It is exactly this
underlying theoretical concept of identication
with the organization we now turn to and which
builds the theoretical framework for the studies
reported in the remainder of the article. We
propose the Social Identity Approach as a
theoretical framework fruitful for understanding
whether and why group members go the extra
mile and become good organizational citizens.
Social Identity Approach
The Social Identity Approach (e.g. Haslam, 2004)
consists of the two related theories Social Identity
Theory and Self-Categorization Theory. Social
Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979, 1986)
has been developed rst to understand inter-
group hostility and in-group favouritism and has
later been applied to organizational contexts
(Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Since then, it has
been a fruitful framework to explore and under-
stand issues of leadership, productivity, commu-
nication and decision making, or stress in the
workplace and has also been applied to topics
like power, protest and collective action, negotia-
tion, mergers and many others (see Haslam, 2004;
Haslam and Ellemers, 2005; Haslam, Postmes
and Ellemers, 2003; Van Dick, 2004; Van Dick,
et al., 2004).
Broadly speaking, Social Identity Theory (SIT)
predicts that (1) people strive for a positive self-
concept and that (2) ones identity partly consists
of ones memberships in social groups for
instance membership in organizations (see Hogg
and Terry, 2000). Being a member of a specic
organization partly answers the individuals
question of Who am I and thus contributes to
his or her self-denition. Social Identity Theory
thus would predict that organizational members
identication with their organization will be
associated with their attitudes and behaviours.
Indeed, Pratt (1998) has elaborated on the point
that social identication with organizations
serves the individuals needs for belonging,
safety, or self-enhancement. Following this, an
individual who identies more strongly with an
organization will have more of his or her needs
satised and will therefore express a greater level
of job satisfaction.
Van Knippenberg (2000) argued that organiza-
tional identication elicits a sense of oneness with
the organization, which makes the individual
take the organizations perspective and goals as
his or her own (see also Ellemers, De Gilder and
Haslam, 2004). This in turn strengthens work
motivation and ultimately performance. Because
in-role performance is determined by several
factors outside the individuals direct control,
the expected positive eect of identication on
performance should be marked for forms of
extra-role or citizenship behaviours. Addition-
ally, for employees who are strongly identied
with their organizations their sense of self is
dened in terms of the organizations iden-
tity. This means that the other members of
the organization play a signicant role in an
Organizational identication and citizenship behaviour 285
individuals denition of self. Helping those
others out through acts of citizenship and extra-
role behaviour thus makes sense as it is eectively
contributing to helping oneself.
Self-Categorization Theory (SCT) has been
developed by Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher
and Wetherell (1987). It species contextual
inuences on identication and has largely
enriched research on processes within groups.
SCT assumes that individuals can categorize
themselves at three levels of abstraction: on a
subordinate level as an individual person (who
compares herself with other individuals), on an
intermediate level as a member of a certain group
(which then is compared with relevant out-
groups), or on a superordinate level as a human
being. SIT and SCT describe two preconditions
for the emergence of self-categorizations and
group behaviours: identication and salience of
category. Identication means that the individual
can be identied with a certain category, i.e. that
he or she ts into the category, and that the
individual identies him- or herself with that
category, i.e. perceives this category as relevant
for his or her identity. The concept of category
salience connects the proposed processes with
situational inuences. On the one hand, salience
depends on the accessibility of a category within
a persons cognitive repertoire; on the other hand
it depends on the t of the category to the
situation (Oakes, Turner and Haslam, 1991).
Salience increases, for instance, when categories
are especially mentioned (Hogg and Turner,
1985), when one category is set into a context
of relevant other categories (Turner et al., 1987,
p. 112f ), and particularly when the category is set
into conict with other categories (Wagner and
Ward, 1993). If self-categorization takes place on
the intermediate level as a group member, the
above mentioned conditions would make group
membership and social identity more salient and
more relevant.
We begin our investigation with ndings noted
in Rikettas (2005) recent meta-analysis regarding
organizational identication (OI) and its rela-
tionship to a variety of work-related attitudes,
behaviours and context variables. Riketta (2005)
noted that overall measures of OI were cor-
related with extra-role behaviours at r 50.35,
po0.001 (for individual studies on the relation-
ship between identication and OCB, see Ouwer-
kerk, Ellemers and de Gilder, 1999; Tyler and
Blader, 2000). While no information is provided
on how such behaviours were coded for Rikettas
meta-analysis, we understand them to mean
extra-role performance as originally dened by
Organ (1988). In this manner then, we begin with
a meta-analysis of our own research investigating
the relationship between identication and citi-
zenship performance. The above reasoning leads
us to predict:
H1: Organizational identication and organi-
zational citizenship behaviour will be signi-
cantly and positively related.
Study 1
Study 1 uses a multi-sample approach to inves-
tigate whether the relationship between identi-
cation and OCB is substantial and generalizes
across dierent cultural settings as well as
dierent occupational groups. Rather than un-
folding our analyses sample by sample, we will
analyze all the relevant data simultaneously using
meta-analysis.
Participants and procedure
Sample 1. Standardized questionnaires were
lled out by 211 call-centre agents in Germany.
Sixty-ve percent of respondents were female, age
in categorical classes: o25 years: 47%, 2534
years: 38%, 3544 years: 12%, 4554 years: 2%,
454 years: 1%, and mean professional experi-
ence was 1.1 years (SD52.5 years). Response
rate was 71%. Organizational identication was
obtained with an instrument in the form of a
table that has been shown to be an economical
measure for the reliable and valid assessment of
the dierent foci of identication (Van Dick,
Wagner, Stellmacher and Christ, 2004). Six items
within the table were tapping into organizational
identication (e.g. I identify with my organiza-
tion, Being a member of my organization is a
reection of who I am). These items were
averaged and provided a good reliability
(a 50.85). OCB was measured using self-reports.
Participants were asked to answer nine items
based on a German scale measuring organiza-
tional citizenship by Staufenbiel and Hartz (2000)
(sample items I help orienting new colleagues, I
always help colleagues readily; six-point answer-
286 R. van Dick et al.
ing scale with endpoints 1 5is not at all correct
to 6 5totally correct (a 50.75).
Sample 2. The sample consisted of 515 female
(N5316) and male (N5199) teachers, stemming
from all German school types and from eight
dierent federal states. Mean age was 46 years
(SD59 years). Details of the sample and
procedures are provided in Van Dick, Wagner,
Stellmacher and Christ (2004). Questionnaires
were distributed by student research assistants in
86 dierent schools. Overall response rate was
63%. The instrument to measure organizational
identication was almost identical to the scale
used in Sample 1 (with organization replaced by
school) and revealed a good internal consis-
tency of a50.80. OCB was measured with
thirteen items very similar to those in Sample 1
(a 50.85).
Sample 3. The original sample consisted of 464
teachers from two dierent German school-types
(elementary school, n 5195, and secondary high
school, n 5257) and four dierent federal states.
The aim of this study was to test eects of
manipulating the salience of dierent foci of
identication (career, school, occupation; van
Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher and Christ, 2005).
However, a control group of n 5233 teachers
within the total sample received questionnaires
with no manipulation at all and this control group
is the basis for the following analyses. Fifty-eight
percent of the sample were female, mean age was
46 years (SD59.8 years). Questionnaires were
distributed by student research assistants in 22
dierent schools. The overall response rate was
45%. Identication and OCB were measured
using the same items as in Sample 1.
Sample 4. This sample was specically acquired
for the purpose of this study and consisted of
526 teachers from six dierent German school-
types. Forty-nine percent of the sample was female,
mean age was 47 years (SD58.6 years). Ques-
tionnaires were distributed by student re-
search assistants in 42 dierent schools. The
overall response rate was 50%. Identication
and OCB were measured using the same items as
in Sample 2 (except for dropping two OCB items).
Sample 5. Participants were 358 bank employ-
ees from a large regional bank in Hessia, a federal
state in the centre of Germany. Fifty-two percent
of respondents were female, age was obtained in
categorical classes (o25 years: 14%, 2534 years:
29%, 3544 years: 29%, 4554 years: 23%, 454
years: 4%), and participants were employed by
the current company on average for 6.6 years
(SD57 years). Response rate was 68%. Organi-
zational identication was obtained with an
identical instrument as in Sample 1 (a 50.81).
OCB was measured using ve items (e.g. I help
orienting new colleagues, I cheer up colleagues
who are feeling blue, a 50.73).
Sample 6. Participants were 107 employees of
another German bank. Seventy percent of
respondents were female, age was obtained in
categorical classes (o25 years: 24%, 2534 years:
30%, 3544 years: 32%, 4554 years: 12%,454
years: 2%), and participants were employed by
the current company for an average of 8.7 years
(SD56.3 years). Response rate was 64%.
Identication was obtained with items identical
to those in Sample 1 (a 50.80). OCB was
measured with 11 items similar to those in the
previous samples (a 50.65).
Sample 7. Standardized questionnaires were
lled out by 459 employees of a recently merged
clinical hospital in the centre of Germany. The
overall response rate was 37%. The sample
consisted of 38% females, age was obtained in
categorical classes (o25 years: 9%, 2534 years:
14%, 3544 years: 36%, 4554 years: 31%, 454
years: 9%), and 63% of the total sample were
working in the therapeutic sector (e.g. as medical
doctors, nurses, educators) and 37% in other
domains mainly in administration. Instruments to
obtain identication with the merged organization
(4 items, a50.88) and OCB (5 items, a50.72)
were almost identical to those in Sample 1.
Sample 8. A heterogeneous sample of 433
German employees lled out a standardized
questionnaire including a measure for identica-
tion (5 items, a50.76, e.g. When I talk about
my team, I usually say we rather than they ;
Mael and Ashforth, 1992) and OCB (6 items,
a 50.70; Staufenbiel and Hartz, see Sample 1).
Participants are employed mainly in the health
service (22%), industry (15%), trade business
(14.4%), private service sector (14.7%) and
public management (11.2%). Fifty-two percent
Organizational identication and citizenship behaviour 287
possessed an educational degree equal or higher
than high school (A-levels).
Sample 9. Standardized questionnaires were
lled out by 399 employees of a manufacturing
company in South China. The company is family
owned, with 1700 sta. Annual turnover is about
10 million pounds (12 million US$). Eighty-four
percent of respondents were male, mean age was
30.24 years (SD57.88), and mean professional
experience was 2.99 years (SD52.5 years).
Response rate was 80%. One percent of the
respondents were senior managers, 18% middle
management and 89% general sta. Organiza-
tional identication was obtained with the six-
item scale by Mael and Ashforth (1992). These
items were averaged and provided a good
reliability (a50.77). OCB was measured using
self-reports. Participants were asked to answer
four items (sample items I help colleagues
with heavy workloads, I am always very
punctual; seven-point answering scale with end-
points 1 5totally disagree, 7 5totally agree
(a 50.81). All questionnaires were translated into
Mandarin and then back translated to check for
inconsistencies.
Sample 10. Out of the 92 listed companies in
Nepal, 10 companies were randomly selected and
asked to participate in this study. After recei-
ving the agreement of ve companies (banks,
telecommunication, and television broadcasting
corporation), standardized questionnaires were
printed and given to the heads of the respective
human resources departments of each organiza-
tion. Participation was voluntary and anonymous
for each employee. The questionnaires were
accompanied by a cover letter by the organiza-
tions, explaining the condentiality and the
relevance of this research. Standardized ques-
tionnaires were lled out by 450 employees which
is a response rate of 92% of all questionnaires
given to the organizations. Seventy-nine percent
of respondents were male, the mean age was 33.6
years (SD56.29), 70% were married, 78% had
graduated, the mean professional experience was
9.47 years (SD55.97). Thus, the sample is very
heterogeneous representing a broad range of the
Nepalese workforce, although not claiming to be
representative for the whole population. Che-
neys Organizational Identication Questionnaire
(OIQ, 1983) consisting of 25 items was adop-
ted to assess organizational identication (see
Gautam et al., 2004). OCB was measured using a
nine-item scale derived from Smith et al. (1983)
scales to capture OCB (sample items I help
others who have heavy workloads, I do not
spend a lot of time in idle conversation). A
Nepalese version of the questionnaire consisting
of these scales was administered to the majority
of the sample (n 5365), an English version was
used in a smaller sub-sample (n 585) because one
organization insisted on an English version. Both
the English and the Nepalese versions were cross-
checked by a Nepalese language expert. A
separate analysis (Gautam, 2004) revealed no
important statistical dierences in reliability
and factor structure between the samples lling
out the English and the Nepalese version,
respectively. Participants had to indicate their
agreement with each item on six-point Likert
scales (endpoints: 1 5totally disagree, 6 5to-
tally agree).
Results
Table 1 provides means, standard deviations and
correlations between the concepts. Identication
and OCB are related in all of the samples. In
support of H1, the respective correlations are
r 50.514 (N5210, po0.001) for Sample 1,
r 50.494 (N5435, po0.001) for Sample 2,
r 50.503 (N5222, po0.001) for Sample 3,
r 50.360 (N5520, po0.001) for Sample 4,
r 50.330 (N5339, po0.001) for Sample 5,
r 50.299 (N5107, po0.01) for Sample 6,
r 50.301 (N5387, po0.001) for Sample 7,
r 50.363 (N5433, po0.001) for Sample 8,
r 50.407 (N5399, po0.001) for Sample 9, and
r 50.385 (N5450, po0.001) for Sample 10.
Johnsons DSTAT upgrade computer program
(1.10) was used to produce the meta-analytical
summary (Johnson, 1989). The eect size of each
study was converted to d by correcting them for
sample size bias in small studies. Each d was
weighted by the reciprocal of its variance to put
greater weight on eect sizes estimated from large
sample sizes. Mean eect size using all ten studies
is d 50.85, indicating that the higher the organi-
zational identication the higher the reported
OCB of the respondents. The 95% condence
interval for this mean was, CI 50.80 to 0.90,
which does not include 0, Z534.02 po0.001.
288 R. van Dick et al.
The hypothesis of homogeneity was rejected, Q
(9) 550.93, po0.001, which indicates that the
eect size derived in this analysis does not
describe the entire dataset. Thus, an outlier
analysis was performed to obtain homogeneity
of variance. Three outliers (Samples 1 to 3) were
removed such that Q (6) 58.97, p 50.18. The
resulting mean eect size, d 50.76 (po0.001;
CI 50.71 to 0.82; Z526.68, po0.001), was only
marginally lower than the original one. The
average corrected correlation is r 50.3559 (un-
corrected: r 50.3565). Thus our rst hypothesis
was conrmed.
Discussion
First of all, it is important to state that our rst
hypothesis was fully supported across the ten
samples used in Study 1. The average corrected
eect size was substantial and shows that
employees who are more strongly identied with
their organizations are also more likely to go the
extra mile on behalf of their organization and to
put in extra eort to help their colleagues. The
meta-analysis shows that there is substantial
variation across the studies but more impor-
tantly, the condence interval around the average
correlation does not include zero. Thus, identi-
cation and OCB are related signicantly and
substantially in samples of for-prot as well as in
non-for-prot organizations, in the educational,
hospital, banking and call centre sectors. The
meta-analysis also includes two samples of non-
Western origin. China and Nepal are indeed
culturally very dierent contexts to study these
concepts. Although few systematic investigations
of the Nepalese culture have been undertaken,
the few exceptions document marked dierences
with traditional values of Western societies.
Agrawal (1977) and Caplan (1990), for instance,
have done some work on culture in Nepal from
which a number of observations can be made.
Given the inuences of religion, historical migra-
tion patterns, and the predominantly tribal
structure and agricultural economy of the coun-
try, Nepalese society is primarily collectivistic.
The focus for this may be the caste, the extended
family or tribe, or networks of obligations or
source, (similar to Chinese Guanxi, Tsui and
Farh, 1993). However, the strictures of social
class limit the acquisition of status through these
links. As such, and in line with Kanungo and
Jaegers (1990) culture prole of developing
countries, Nepalese society is high in Power
Distance. This derives from the dominant reli-
gion and power structures, and recognition of
status and face is an important feature of social
interaction. Status is predominantly ascribed
Table 1. Scale means, standard deviations, coecient alphas, and correlations, Study 1
M SD Identication OCB
Sample 1, Organizational Identication 4.03 1.17 (0.85)
OCB 4.67 0.68 0.51** (0.75)
Sample 2, Organizational Identication 4.29 1.02 (0.80)
OCB 4.31 0.83 0.49** (0.84)
Sample 3, Organizational Identication 4.39 0.97 (0.81)
OCB 4.34 0.77 0.50** (0.82)
Sample 4, Organizational Identication 4.22 0.99 (0.74)
OCB 4.22 0.75 0.36** (0.74)
Sample 5, Organizational Identication 4.64 0.95 (0.81)
OCB 5.06 0.68 0.33** (0.73)
Sample 6, Organizational Identication 4.53 0.97 (0.80)
OCB 4.21 0.79 0.30** (0.65)
Sample 7, Organizational Identication 3.44 1.52 (0.88)
OCB 5.42 0.66 0.30** (0.72)
Sample 8, Organizational Identication 4.52 0.91 (0.76)
OCB 4.37 0.87 0.36** (0.70)
Sample 9, Organizational Identication 5.45 1.20 (0.77)
OCB 6.11 0.98 0.41** (0.81)
Sample 10, Organizational Identication 4.80 0.66 (0.89)
OCB 5.38 0.55 0.39** (0.76)
Note: Coecient alphas are in parentheses.
**po 0.01.
Organizational identication and citizenship behaviour 289
rather than achieved (Trompenaars, 1993). Un-
certainty avoidance similarly is high, continuous
change and the importance of status both serve to
make risk-taking and innovation unnecessary
and unadvisable. Given these value dierences,
we believe that the results obtained here in two
relatively large samples lend support to the
assumption that the proposed relationship be-
tween identication and OCB may be considered
as universal.
This gives us some condence that our ndings
are indeed valid, not qualied by the cultural
setting, type of industry or sector under study.
The overall correlation found here replicates
that of Rikettas (2005) meta-analysis. However,
as with Rikettas (2005) meta-analysis, the
approach we have taken within this rst study
has several limitations. First, as the metho-
dological design for all studies within Study 1 is
cross-sectional, causal statements about the
relationship between identication and citizen-
ship are problematic. Second, this study investi-
gated this relationship exclusively at the
individual level of analysis, yet the sharing of
social information of teams and groups may
cause this relationship to exist at a higher level of
analysis. Additionally, although not a limitation
of itself, Study 1 did not investigate the impact
that the identication/OCB relationship has on
measures of organizational performance beyond
individual OCB. Thus to address these issues and
limitations, Studies 2 through 4 will focus on each
in turn.
Within Study 2, we will investigate the causal
relationship between OI and OCB, specically:
H2: Longitudinally, the relationship between
OI at time 1 and OCB at Time 2 will be
stronger than the relationship between OCB at
time 1 and OI at Time 2.
Study 2
Method
Participants for study two came from educational
institutions in Germany. The data collected for the
current study come from a larger project designed
to investigate the relationship between stress and
strain for teachers in training (Christ, 2004). The
data reported here were collected at two time
periods, with a six-month time lag between
collections. Ninety-four teachers participated with
a mean age of 27.7 years (SD54.24), 74% female
(N569), and 67% with a partner (N563).
Organizational identication was obtained
with an instrument in the form of a table (Van
Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher and Christ, 2004; see
Sample 1 of Study 1) at both points of measure-
ment. Six items within the table were used to
measure organizational identication (e.g. Being
a member of my school is a reection of who I
am). After excluding one item (My school is
evaluated positively by others), scale reliability
was sucient (a 50.87 for Time 1, a 50.83 for
Time 2). OCB was measured using self reports.
Participants were asked to answer ve items, the
items were comparable to those used in the
teacher samples in Study 1 (e.g. To questions or
uncertainties of colleagues I always help readily;
a 50.72 for Time 1, a 50.65 for Time 2).
Results
In Table 2, means, standard deviations and
simple correlations of the two study measures
are summarized. To analyze the relation between
organizational identication and OCB over time,
a cross-lagged analysis was performed (Jo reskog,
1979). Results are summarized in Figure 1. Of
most interest are the cross-lagged relationships
which show, in line with H2, that identication
measured at Time 1 is more related to OCB at a
later stage (r 50.16, po0.10), whereas the
opposite path of OCB inuencing identication
does not turn out to be signicant.
Discussion
The results of Study 2 support our basic
theoretical assumptions of causality, i.e. identi-
cation largely impacts on OCB rather than OCB
Identification Identification
OCB OCB
Time 1 Time 2
d1
d2
.49*** .27*
.74***
.51***
.03
Figure 1. Cross-lagged analysis of the relation between identi-
cation and OCB over time, Study 2 (standardized estimates).
Note.
1
po0.10; * po0.05; *** po0.001.
290 R. van Dick et al.
inuencing identication. Studies 1 and 2 have
thus convincingly demonstrated that organiza-
tional identication is related to organizational
OCB and that this relationship holds for a variety
of cultural contexts. Our next step was to
investigate the appropriate level of analysis to
measure and detect these relationships.
As stated previously, identication with an
organization involves some degree of social com-
parison and shared information with other mem-
bers. Thus we could expect that the natural process
of sharing information within teams would lead to
a shared identity with the organization. Second,
Self-Categorization Theory would suggest that
group members would categorize themselves as
members of this particular group if the context
were to render this group membership salient. Van
Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher and Christ (2005) could
indeed show that manipulations within the intro-
duction to an employee survey had an impact on
the respective group members identication with
certain categories. Thus our primary aim in the
fourth study is to explore whether both concepts
can also be measured and analysed on an aggregate
level and whether the basic relationship between
identication and OCB is also applicable in a team-
based study. Specically, the following hypothesis
is proposed:
H3: The team-level (aggregated) correlation
between OI and OCB will be signicant and
positive.
Study 3
Method
Data were collected in a further education (FE)
college located in Birmingham, UK. The college
has around 550 sta, including curriculum sta,
managers, executive sta, senior managers, direc-
tors, assistant principals/principals, directors,
administration sta, security etc. The college has
a team-based structure with sta working in 25
teams such as estates, community and partner-
ships, health and safety, nursery, personnel,
support workers, IT, or engineering. A total of
150 questionnaires were distributed (ve to eight
in each team), response rate was 92%. Seventy-
two percent of the 138 respondents are female,
mean age was M539.78 years (SD511.25),
average tenure was M56.35 years (SD56.54).
Organizational identication was obtained
using the four-item scale developed by Doosje,
Ellemers and Spears (1995), with excellent scale
reliability (a50.92). OCB was measured using
ve items very similar to those used in the
previous studies (e.g. I help colleagues who have
heavy workloads, I always follow rules very
thoroughly, I gladly help orienting new collea-
gues; a 50.79). Items of both scales were
answered on ve point scales (endpoints: fully
disagree, and fully agree).
Results
This study set out to explore whether identication
and OCB were related in a team-context and could
be aggregated on the team level. The indivi-
dual correlation of r 50.413 ( po0.001) between
identication (M53.63, SD50.96) and OCB
(M54.14, SD50.64) matched the relationships
obtained in all previous studies very closely. Before
calculating the aggregate correlation between the
concepts on the team level, we calculated inter-
rater reliability coecients to demonstrate con-
sensual validity (Rwg( j), James, Demaree and
Wolf, 1984). Both scales had good consensual
validity (for identication, Rwg(j) 50.83; for OCB,
Rwg(j) 50.92). We thus aggregated the individual
identication and OCB scores for respondents of
each team. In support of H3, the aggregated, team-
level correlation was signicant and substantial
(r 50.406; N525; p 50.044).
Table 2. Scale means, standard deviations, and correlations, Study 2
M SD 1 2 3 4
1 Identication (Time 1) 4.31 1.02 0.87 0.75** 0.53** 0.41**
2 Identication (Time 2) 4.51 0.95 0.83 0.47** 0.47**
3 OCB (Time 1) 4.25 0.85 0.72 0.63**
4 OCB (Time 2) 4.36 0.81 0.65
Note: Coecient alphas are in parentheses on the diagonal.
**po 0.01.
Organizational identication and citizenship behaviour 291
Discussion
The ndings from this study provide us with
insight that the identicationcitizenship rela-
tionship exists not only at an individual level, but
at higher levels of analysis. The key question does
not lie in our ability to measure these constructs
at a higher level, but in our ability to make sense
of these ndings. Certainly, the sharing of social
information, eects of shared leadership and
overall climate can account for the existence of
identication beyond the individual level. Indeed,
we can easily make the transition to under-
standing how teams may dier in their overall
identication with the parent organization
through exactly these mechanisms as noted.
The intriguing question then becomes: how do
we operationalize OCB at the team level? Perhaps
this can be explained as a climate for citizenship
in which group norms, shared values and under-
standing contribute to the development of an
environment in which OCB is the norm. Indeed,
returning to the original denitions of OCB as a
broad range of behaviours that contribute to the
maintenance and enhancement of the social/
psychological context that supports task perfor-
mance, we can see that the environment (context)
created by these behaviours might be more than
the additive eect of each individuals behaviour.
We will now turn to the nal question we
wished to address: how is the relationship
between identication and citizenship related to
the external measure of organizational relevance?
Specically, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4: OI will be indirectly related to customer
perceptions and nancial performance,
mediated by OCB.
Study 4
Method
To address this question, we collected data from
sales managers of travel agencies in 15 dierent
German federal states all of which are organized
into a single franchise organization. In addition
to the core constructs of this study (identication
and citizenship performance), we also measured
external performance indicators such as customer
evaluations and hard economic criteria. A total
of 270 questionnaires were distributed. Useable
questionnaires were returned from 153 sales
managers (56.7% response rate). Fifty percent
of the sales managers were female. The average
age was M541.15 years (SD510.43).
Customer evaluations of the service perfor-
mance in the travel agencies were collected using
10 trained test customers (e.g. Finn and
Kayande, 1999). These mystery shoppers encoun-
tered the travel agencies as customers in real
service encounters. For ethical reasons travel
agency sales managers and employees were
approached for their consent to participate in
the study (Dawson and Hillier, 1995; Finn and
Kayande, 1999). All travel agencies agreed to do
so. To be able to test for inter-rater reliability,
each travel agent was approached by two test
customers. Evaluations of the encounter were
made straight after the encounter. Data collec-
tion took place 10 months after the sales manager
survey in a sample of 60 travel agencies drawn
from the larger sample. In each travel agency two
travel agents were approached by a pair of test
customers. This resulted in four observations per
travel agency giving 240 observations in sum.
Organizational Identication was measured with
respect to the franchise organization using Mael
and Ashforths (1992) six-item scale (e.g. When
someone praises this franchise organization, it feels
like a personal compliment; a50.85). OCB was
assessed with ve items (e.g. I actively search for
new information in the organization, I inform
others about current developments in the organi-
zation; a50.73). Test customers evaluations of
the service encounter were measured using four
items (e.g. All in all I am satised with the visit in
this travel agency, The visit in this travel agency
meets my expectations of an ideal visit in a travel
agency; a50.98). The answering format for all
items was a seven-point scale with endpoints
totally disagree, and totally agree, respectively.
Financial performance was operationalized as
annual sales in euros of a travel agency, standar-
dized by the number of employees.
Results
Inter-rater Reliability was calculated to demon-
strate consensual validity (Rwg( j), James, Demaree
and Wolf, 1984). Consensual validity was good
with Rwg(j) 50.89. Matching of sales manager
and test customer data was possible in 60 travel
agencies, whereas in 97 travel agencies sales
manager data and annual sales data were available.
292 R. van Dick et al.
The correlation of r 50.392 ( po0.001) be-
tween identication and OCB again matched the
relationships obtained in all the above mentioned
studies very closely. The key nding in this study
is that OCB signicantly relates to test customers
evaluations (r 50.262; po0.05) and to the annual
sales per employee (r 50.210; po0.05). No
signicant relationships between organizational
identication and test customers evaluations
(r 5 0.022, ns) and to the annual sales per
employee (r 50.079, ns) were found. To test
whether sales managers organizational identi-
cation was indirectly related to test customers
evaluations and annual sales, we applied Sobel-
Procedure (Sobel, 1982) following the suggestions
of Shrout and Bolger (2002). The Sobel-Proce-
dure indeed revealed such indirect eects via sales
managers OCB for test customers evaluations
(t(1) 51.87, po0.10) and travel agencies annual
sales per employee (t(1) 51.87, po0.10). Thus,
although we could not establish direct relation-
ships between organizational identication and
hard performance outcomes, there was evidence
for a mediation eect of sales managers citizen-
ship performance, overall supporting H4.
Discussion
Study 4 replicates the ndings from the other
studies with respect to the identicationOCB
link. It contributes to these studies by yielding
support for H4, i.e. the notion that organiza-
tional identication and OCB at the end of the
day turn out to directly or indirectly aect
important organizational criteria such as custo-
mer evaluations and even annual sales gures.
General discussion
First say to yourself what you would be; and then do
what you have to do.
Attributed to the Stoic philosopher Epictetus,
this statement seems to have as much relevance to
the modern understanding of psychology and
behaviour as it did in the ancient philosophical
pursuit of stoicism. The identity of an individual
is a critical component of understanding that
individuals behaviour. Thus in the present study,
the investigation of the organizational identica-
tion of individuals and the subsequent study of
those persons OCBs is an appropriate approach.
Our ndings both validate and extend substan-
tially Rikettas (2005) nding that organizational
identication is related to OCB. In Study 1 we
not only replicate the existence of this relation-
ship, but its relative strength. Furthermore, the
meta-analysis does not reveal any dierences
between studies conducted in Western versus
non-Western cultures. Thus, the relationship also
generalizes for societies with far dierent social
values that the typical Anglo-European popula-
tion typically measured. Study 2 provided sup-
port that this relationship functions not only
cross-sectionally, but over time as well, as the
Time 1Time 2 path for identicationOCB
remained signicant (although reduced to 0.16),
while the Time 1Time 2 path for OCB
identication became non-signicant. Study 3
addressed the applicability of this construct at
higher levels of analysis, while Study 4 extends
our understanding of this relationship to incor-
porate external measures (customer evaluations
and even annual sales gures).
The ndings of this series of unfolding studies
provide us with both scientic and practical
implications. First, we use several measurement
instruments across our studies to sample from the
domains of interest. For example, we use Van
Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher and Christs (2004)
table approach to identication, Doosje, Ellemers
and Spears (1995) OI scale, Mael and Ashforths
(1992) OI scale, and Cheneys (1983) OIQ to
measure the construct of identication. Similarly,
we used a variety of measures to assess Organs
conceptualization of OCB. We demonstrate that
the methods used to obtain organizational identi-
cation or OCB seem not to play a major role but
that this principal relationship seems robust.
This forms the basis for what we believe to be
one of the strongest implications of our ndings.
Nunally (1978) suggested that the process of
construct validation (or theory development)
involves the inference of a relationship between
two constructs through the development and
analysis of measures designed to sample these
two domains. This is an imprecise process, with
the measurement instruments imperfectly reect-
ing the elements of the construct domains. The
investigators ability to sample repeatedly and
via dierent forms from those construct do-
mains strengthens the inference made about the
Organizational identication and citizenship behaviour 293
relationship between constructs. Thus in the
current series of studies, we are reasonably
certain of the relationship between the constructs
of organizational identication and OCB.
This in turn leads us to make certain inferences
about the applicability of this nding to organi-
zations. Binning and Barrett (1989) suggest that
within a personnel practices context, we make
informed decisions about criteria of interest
based upon the validity of our measurement
instruments in regard to the underlying construct
domains. In particular, they build their argu-
ments on a model of common conceptions about
inferences for personnel selection. In short, they
suggest that an addition to the four inferen-
ces mentioned by Nunally (1978); predictor mea-
sure to predictor construct domain, criterion
measure to criterion construct domain, predictor
measure to criterion measure, and predictor con-
struct domain to criterion construct domain. This
inference is the linkage between the predictor
measure and the criterion construct domain. Thus
in personnel practices, we are not as interested in
how the measures are interrelated as we are in the
inferences we can make about the criterion domain
based upon measurements in the predictor domain.
Within our studies, we acknowledge that the
predictor domain comprises organizational identi-
cation while the criterion domain remains slightly
more complicated. Binning and Barrett (1989)
provide us with a further articulation of their
model that allows us to make more sense of our
ndings. They state that within organizations, the
most prevalent criterion domain of interest is that
of performance and they then further dierentiate
this domain into behaviour and outcome sub-
domains. Thus, our measurement of not only OCB
(behaviour domain) but customer satisfaction and
nancial performance records (outcome domain)
allows us to more comfortably make personnel
decisions in regards to these relationships.
One such application may be that as individual
identication appears to be closely linked to
OCB, it would behove organizations to pay close
attention to the mechanisms through which
identication is achieved. Grojean and Thomas
(2006) suggest that deliberate socialization pro-
cesses of organizations lead to the development
of role-specic identities, which in turn contribute
to individual performance (both task and citizen-
ship). Perhaps certain socialization strategies are
dierentially eective in engendering overall
identication of the organization and would
thus relate to citizenship performance.
Limitations and future directions
As with all studies, the current series has certain
limitations both from a methodological as well as
conceptual perspective. We acknowledge these
limitations and suggest they could form the basis
for future studies. Although the multiple sam-
pling approach from the construct domains
provides us with greater condence in the validity
of our ndings, we did not in fact use these
multiple measures independently from each
other. Thus we recommend that future studies
investigate the relationship with obtaining identi-
cation via self-report and OCBs obtained from
external sources such as peers or supervisors.
A second limitation arises from the cross
cultural implications of the study. We collected
data from the United Kingdom, Germany, Nepal
and China. While we are encouraged by the
replication of the identicationcitizenship rela-
tionship between such widely diverse societies as
represented by western/European countries and
eastern/Asian countries, it would be dicult to
argue that this relationship occurs universally
across cultures. Recently, House and his associates
(House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman and Gupta,
2004) published results from the Global Leader-
ship Organizational Behaviour Eectiveness
(GLOBE) project, in which they describe ten
regional clusters of societies based on their
investigation of societal values (expanding Hof-
stedes (1980) ve dimensions to nine). As Nepal
was not included in the 62 countries represented in
the GLOBE study, we can only suggest at best
inferences about three of those regional clusters
based upon the countries in our study. Thus we
recommend the full exploration of the cross-
cultural viability of the identicationcitizenship
relationship, in which researchers should select
representative societal samples from each of the
identied clusters from the GLOBE study. Accom-
plishing this, we could then build much stronger
arguments of the universality of this relationship.
A third limitation of our study arises from the
causal attribution we make regarding the relation-
ship. While our causal inference was based on
logical rationale, we found this to be supported by
Study 2s longitudinal design. Within the cross-
lagged analysis, we accepted po0.10 as an appro-
294 R. van Dick et al.
priate type 1 error rate because of what we believed
was a reduction in our power to detect the
relationship. The reduction occurred in large part
because of a relatively small sample size, as well as
marginal reliability in our measure of OCB at time
2 (a50.65). Thus while we make a tentative causal
attribution regarding the identicationcitizenship
relationship, we would encourage future research to
investigate this using a more involved longitudinal
design, particularly using a signicant sample size,
as well as multiple time lags.
Two further directions for future research
would be an exploration of multiple foci of
identication, and second, the exibility of
identications impact. Social identity and self-
categorization theories have explicitly argued
that although social identication may be a
relatively stable attitude once established, its
inuence on other attitudes and ones behaviour
may vary from context to context (see Haslam,
2004, for a recent overview). Van Dick et al.
(2005) have demonstrated, for instance, that
manipulations of the instructions in a eld survey
can raise certain salient aspects of ones identity
(e.g. team, organization as a whole), which in
turn increases the impact of these identities on
citizenship behaviours. These ndings in con-
junction with the results presented here may be
extremely useful to managers. If they want to
increase specic forms of citizenship behaviours
(e.g. helping behaviour towards immediate col-
leagues) they should render the specic identity
more salient that is most closely related (here the
team of colleagues rather than the organization
as a whole; see Riketta and Van Dick, 2005).
In conclusion, we believe that these present
studies form an excellent launching pad from
which to investigate the relationship between
organizational identication and citizenship per-
formance. As organizations continue to strive for
enhancements in performance, our understanding
of such relationships will prove invaluable in
personnel recommendations.
Study 3 was supported by a grant to the fourth
author from the German Research Foundation
(WI 3146/11).
We are grateful to Thaneswor Gautam, Ling
Ling Hunang, and Narjis Naqhi for their help
with data collection.
References
Agrawal, G. R. (1977). Management and Development. CEDA,
Kathmandu.
Ashforth, B. E. and F. Mael (1989). Social identity theory and the
organization, Academy of Management Journal, 14, pp. 2039.
Binning, J. F. and G. V. Barrett (1989). Validity of personnel
decisions: A conceptual analysis of the inferential and
evidential bases, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
pp. 478494.
Borman, W. and S. J. Motowidlo (1993). Expanding the criterion
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In:
N. Schmitt and W. Borman (eds), Personnel Selection in
Organizations, pp. 7198. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco.
Brief, A. P. and S. J. Motowidlo (1986). Prosocial organiza-
tional behaviors, Academy of Management Review, 11,
pp. 710725.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). An overview of the army selection and
classication project (Project A), Personnel Psychology, 43,
pp. 231239.
Campbell, J. P., R. McCloy, S. Oppler and C. Sager (1992). A
theory of performance. In: N. Schmitt and W. Borman (eds),
New Developments in Selection and Placement. Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Caplan, L. (1990). Tribes in ethnography of Nepal: Some
comments on a debate, Contribution to Nepalese Studies, 17,
pp. 129145.
Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings
of organizational membership: A eld study of organiza-
tional identication, Communication Monographs, 50,
pp. 342362.
Christ, O. (2004). Die U

berprufung der transaktionalen

Stresstheorie im Lehramstreferendariat [An empirical test of
the transactional stress theory among student teachers].
Electronic Dissertation, Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of Marburg, Germany. http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/
pub/opus/volltexte/2005/1008/pdf/Christ2004.pdf.
Dawson, J. and J. Hillier (1995). Competitor mystery shop-
ping: Methodological considerations and implications for
MRS Code of Conduct, Journal of the Market Research
Society, 37, pp. 417427.
Doosje, B., N. Ellemers and R. Spears (1995). Perceived
intragroup variability as a function of group status and
identication, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31,
pp. 410436.
Ellemers, N., D. De Gilder and S. A. Haslam (2004).
Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity
perspective on leadership and group performance, Academy
of Management Review, 29, pp. 459478.
Finn, A. and U. Kayande (1999). Unmasking a phantom: A
psychometric assessment of mystery shopping, Journal of
Retailing, 75, pp. 195217.
Gautam, T. (2004). Organizational commitment in Nepal,
unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Kathmandu: Faculty of Manage-
ment, Tribhuvan University.
Gautam, T., R. Van Dick and U. Wagner (2004). Organiza-
tional identication and organizational commitment: Dis-
tinct aspects of two related concepts, Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 7, pp. 301315.
George, J. and G. Jones (1997). Experiencing work: Values,
attitudes, and moods, Human Relations, 50, pp 363382.
Organizational identication and citizenship behaviour 295
Grojean, M. W. and J. T. Thomas (2006). From values to
performance: Its the journey that changes the traveller. In:
T. Britt, A. Adler and C. Castro (eds), Minds in the Military:
Psychology and Life in the Armed Services, (Vol. 4). Praeger
Security International Westport, CT.
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in Organizations: The Social
Identity Approach. Sage, London.
Haslam, S. A. and N. Ellemers (2005). Social identity in
industrial and organizational psychology: Concepts, contro-
versies, and contributions. In: G. P. Hodgkinson and
J. K. Ford (eds) International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 20, pp. 39118. Wiley, Chichester.
Haslam, S. A., T. Postmes and N. Ellemers (2003). More than a
metaphor: Organizational identity makes organizational life
possible, British Journal of Management, 13, pp. 249257.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences: International
Dierences in Work-related Values. Sage, London.
Hogg, M. A. and D. J. Terry (2000). Social identity and self-
categorization processes in organizational contexts, Acad-
emy of Management Review, 25, pp. 121140.
Hogg, M. A. and J. C. Turner (1985). When liking begets
solidarity: An experiment on the role of interpersonal
attraction in psychological group formation, British Journal
of Social Psychology, 24, pp. 267281.
House, R. P., M. Hanges, P. Javidan, P. Dorfman and
V. Gupta (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations:
The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Ilgen, D. R. and J. R. Hollenbeck (1991). The structure of
work: jobs and roles. In: M. Dunnette and L. Hough (eds),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
(2
nd
edn., Vol. 2, pp. 165208. Consulting Psychologists
Press, Palo Alto.
James, L. R., R. G. Demaree and G. Wolf (1984). Estimating
within group inter-rater reliability with and without response
bias, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, pp. 8589.
Johnson, B. (1989). Software for the Meta-analytic Review of
Research Literatures. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. (Upgrade
documentation, 1993).
Jo reskog, K. G. (1979). Statistical estimation of structural
models in longitudinal development investigations. In:
J. R. Nesselroade and P. B. Baltes (eds), Longitudinal
Research in the Study of Behavior and Development,
pp. 303352. Academic Press, New York.
Kanungo, R. N. and A. M. Jaeger (1990). Introduction: The
need for indigenous management in developing countries.
In: R. N. Kanungo and A. M. Jaeger (eds), Management in
Developing Countries. Routledge, London.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational
behavior, Behavioral Science, 9, pp. 131146.
Mael, F. and B. E. Ashforth (1992). Alumni and their alma
mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organiza-
tional identication, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,
pp. 103123.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role denitions and organizational
citizenship behavior: The importance of the employees
perspective, Academy of Management Journal, 37,
pp. 15431567.
Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric Test Theory. McGraw Hill,
New York.
Oakes, P. J., J. C. Turner and S. A. Haslam (1991). Perceiving
people as group members: The role of t in the salience of
social categorizations, British Journal of Social Psychology,
30, pp. 125144.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior. D. C.
Heath and Co, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
construct clean-up time, Human Performance, 10, pp. 8597.
Organ, D. W., P. M. Podsako and S. B. MacKenzie (2006).
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Its Nature, Antecedents,
and Consequences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
Ouwerkerk, J. W., Ellemers, N. and de Gilder, D. (1999).
Social identication, aective commitment and individual
eort on behalf of the group. In: N. Ellemers, R. Spears and
B. J. Doosje (eds), Social Identity: Context, Commitment,
Content, pp. 184204. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in
organizational identication. In: D. A. Whetten and
P. C. Godfrey (eds), Identity in Organizations. Building Theory
through Conversations, pp. 171207. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identication: A meta-
analysis, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, pp. 358384.
Riketta, M. and R. Van Dick (2005). Foci of attachment in
organizations: A meta-analytic comparison of the strength
and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identica-
tion and commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66,
pp. 490510.
Rioux, S. M. and L. A. Penner (2001). The causes of
organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, pp. 13061314.
Shrout, P. E. and N. Bolger (2002). Mediation in experimental
and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recom-
mendations, Psychological Methods, 7, pp. 422445.
Smith, C. A., D. W. Organ and J. P. Near (1983). Organiza-
tional citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, pp. 653663.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect eects in
structural equations models. In: S. Leinhart (ed.), Sociological
Methodology, pp. 290312. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Staufenbiel, T. and C. Hartz (2000). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Entwicklung und erste Validierung eines Messin-
strumentes [Organizational citizenship behaviour: Develop-
ment and rst validation of a measure], Diagnostica, 46,
pp. 7383.
Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner (1979). An integrative theory of
intergroup conict. In: W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (eds),
The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp. 3347.
Brooks/Cole, Monterey.
Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner (1986). The social of identity theory
of intergroup behavior. In: S. Worchel and W. G. Austin
(eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp. 724. Nelson,
Chicago.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Under-
standing Cultural Diversity in Business. Nicholas Brealey
Publishing Ltd, London.
Tsui, A. S. and J. L. Farh (1993). Where guanxi matters:
Relational demography and guanxi in the Chinese context,
Work and Occupations, 24, pp. 5679.
Turner, J. C., M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher and
M. S. Wetherell (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Turnipseed, D. L. and A. Rassuli (2005). Performance
perceptions of organizational citizenship behaviours at work:
296 R. van Dick et al.
A bi-level study among managers and employees, British
Journal of Management, 16, pp. 231244.
Tyler, T. R. and S. L. Blader (2000). Cooperation in Groups.
Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engage-
ment. Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Van Dick, R. (2004). My job is my castle: Identication in
organisational contexts. In: C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson
(eds), International Review of Industrial and Organisational
Psychology, 19, pp. 171204. Wiley, Chichester.
Van Dick, R., O. Christ, J. Stellmacher, U. Wagner, O. Ahlswede,
C. Grubba, M. Hauptmeier, C. Ho hfeld, K. Moltzen and P.
Tissington (2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining
turnover intentions with organisational identication and job
satisfaction, British Journal of Management, 15, pp. 351360.
Van Dick, R., U. Wagner, J. Stellmacher and O. Christ (2004). The
utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identi-
cation: Which aspects really matter?, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 77, pp. 171191.
Van Dick, R., U. Wagner, J. Stellmacher and O. Christ (2005).
Category salience and its eects on organizational identica-
tion, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
78, pp. 273285.
Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and perfor-
mance: A social identity perspective, Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 49, pp. 357371.
Wagner, U. and P. L. Ward (1993). Variation of outgroup
presence and evaluation of the in-group, British Journal of
Social Psychology, 32, pp. 241251.
Rolf van Dick earned his Ph.D. from Philipps-Universita t, Marburg, Germany. He is Professor of
Social Psychology at the Department of Psychology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universita t
Frankfurt, Germany, and also holds a part-time chair at Aston Business School. His primary
research interests are in the application of social identity theory in organizational settings (diversity,
leadership, mergers). Rolf is associate editor of the European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology.
Michael W. Grojean earned his Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Maryland. After 23
years of practice in the public sector, he joined the academic faculty at Aston Business School where
he currently holds the post of Head of Executive Education. His primary research interests are in
leadership, leader development, ethics and organizational citizenship.
Jan Wieseke earned his Ph.D. from Philipps-Universita t, Marburg, Germany. He is currently a
research associate at Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universita t, Frankfurt, Germany. His research is
focused on the social psychological foundations of marketing.
Oliver Christ is a lecturer of social psychology at Philipps-Universita t Marburg, Germany and an
advisor for survey methodology at the Universita t Bielefeld, Germany. He earned his Ph.D in social
psychology from Philipps-Universita t, Marburg, Germany. His research interests are in the eld of
intergroup relations, ethnic prejudice and social identity processes in organizations.
Organizational identication and citizenship behaviour 297
Table A1
Study 1
Sample 1
Organizational Identication
I identify myself as a member of my organization.
Being a member of my organization reects my personality well.
I like to work for my organization.
I think reluctantly of my organization (recoded).
Sometimes I would rather not say that Im a member of my organization (recoded).
I am actively involved in my organization.
OCB
I help colleagues who have a heavy workload.
When noticing that colleagues rather complicate their work, I try to show them easier ways.
When my organization is criticized, I defend its reputation.
I help orienting new colleagues.
I voluntarily attend workshops and courses to help improve my work.
If colleagues are feeling down, I try to cheer them up.
I try to arbitrate if colleagues have arguments.
I dont take on additional duties my normal work suces.
I always try to process customer information very carefully and to store it systematically.
Sample 2
Organizational Identication
I identify myself as a member of my school.
Being a member of my school reects my personality well.
I like to work for my school.
I think reluctantly of my school. (recoded).
Sometimes I would rather not say that Im a member of my school (recoded).
I am actively involved in my school.
OCB
I am involved in professional bodies.
I help colleagues who have a heavy workload.
I regularly study educational papers.
I am actively involved in meetings and conferences.
I am always looking for new pedagogical concepts.
I always try to help if colleagues have problems or questions.
I often take on additional jobs.
I am not much interested in doing extra work because one doesnt get any recognition for this (recoded).
I help orienting new colleagues.
I frequently attend further vocational training.
I help to organize school parties and similar events.
Sample 3
All items identical to Sample 2.
Sample 4
Organizational Identication
All items identical to Sample 2.
OCB
I am involved in professional bodies.
I help colleagues who have a heavy workload.
I regularly study educational papers.
I am actively involved in meetings and conferences.
I am always looking for new pedagogical concepts.
I always try to help if colleagues have problems or questions.
I often take on additional jobs
I am not much interested in doing extra work because one doesnt get any recognition for this (recoded).
I help orienting new colleagues.
I frequently participate in further vocational training.
I help to organize school parties and similar events.
Sample 5
Organizational Identication
All items identical to Sample 1.
OCB
298 R. van Dick et al.
I am always very punctual.
I always follow rules very thoroughly.
I gladly help orient new colleagues.
I help colleagues who have heavy workloads.
I cheer up colleagues who are feeling blue.
Sample 6
Organizational Identication
All items identical to Sample 1.
OCB
I often make innovative suggestions.
I often take on additional jobs.
I help colleagues who have a heavy workload.
I regularly supervise trainees.
I read vocational literature.
I am actively involved in meetings and conferences.
I help orient new colleagues.
I am always very punctual.
I always try to help if colleagues have problems or questions.
I frequently participate in further vocational training.
I rarely take breaks.
Sample 7
Organizational Identication
I identify with the [name of the merger].
I am glad to work for [name of the merger].
[Name of the merger] has a good reputation among people around me whose opinions are important to me.
I am willing to engage for [name of the merger] more than absolutely necessary.
OCB
I am always very punctual.
I always follow rules very thoroughly.
I gladly help orient new colleagues.
I help colleagues who have heavy workloads.
I inform my colleagues and supervisors early when Im unable to come to work.
Sample 8
Organizational Identication
When someone criticizes my organization, it feels like a personal insult.
When I talk about my organization, I usually say we rather than they.
I view the organizations successes as my successes.
When someone praises my organization, it feels like a personal compliment.
If a story in the media criticized my organization, I would feel embarrassed.
OCB
I am always very punctual.
I always follow rules very thoroughly.
I gladly help orient new colleagues.
I help colleagues who have heavy workloads.
I inform my colleagues and supervisors early when Im unable to come to work.
I cheer up colleagues who are feeling blue.
Sample 9
Organizational Identication
When someone criticizes my organization, it feels like a personal insult.
When I talk about my organization, I usually say we rather than they.
I am interested in what others think of the organization I work for.
I view the organizations successes as my successes.
When someone praises my organization, it feels like a personal compliment.
If a story in the media criticized my organization, I would feel embarrassed.
OCB
I am always very punctual.
I always follow rules very thoroughly.
I gladly help orienting new colleagues.
I help colleagues who have heavy workloads.
Sample 10
Organizational Identication
I am proud to be an employee of [organization].
Organizational identication and citizenship behaviour 299
The organizations image in the community represents me well.
I often describe myself to others by saying, I work for [organization], or I am from [organization].
I try to make on-the-job decisions by considering the consequences of my actions for [organization].
We at [organization] are dierent from others in our eld.
I am glad I chose to work for [organization] rather than another company.
I talk about [organization] to my friends as a great company to work for.
In general, I view [organization]s problems as my problems.
I am willing to put in a great deal of eort beyond that normally expected to help [organization] be successful.
I become irritated when I hear others employed by [organization].
I have warm feelings toward [organization] as a place to work.
I would be quite willing to spend the rest of my career with [organization].
I feel that [organization] cares about me.
The record of [organization] is an example of what dedicated people can achieve.
I have lot in common with others employed by [organization].
I nd it dicult to agree with [organization]s policies on important matters relating to me (recoded).
My association with [organization] is only a small part of who I am (recoded).
I like to tell others about projects that [organization] is working on.
I nd that my values and values of [organization] are very similar.
I feel very little loyalty to [organization] (recoded).
I would describe [organization] as a large family in which most members feel a sense of belonging.
I nd it easy to identify myself with [organization]
I really care about the fate of [organization].
I am willing to put in a great deal of eort beyond that expected in order to help this [organization] to be successful.
I talk of this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for.
I feel very little loyalty to [organization].
OCB
I make innovative suggestions.
I volunteer for tasks that are not required.
I help others who have been absent.
I help orient new people.
I help others who have heavy workloads.
I do not take extra breaks.
I do not coast towards the end of the day.
I do not spend a lot of time in idle conversation.
I do not take unnecessary time o work.
Study 2
Organizational Identication
I identify myself as a member of my school.
Being a member of my school reects my personality well.
I like to work for my school.
I think reluctantly of my school (recoded).
Sometimes I would rather not say that Im a member of my school (recoded).
OCB
I help colleagues who have a heavy workload.
I am actively involved in meetings and conferences.
I always try to help if colleagues have problems or questions.
I am not much interested an doing extra work because one doesnt get any recognition for this (recoded).
I help to organize school parties and similar events.
Study 3
Organizational Identication
I dene myself as a member of this college.
I am pleased to be a member of this college.
I feel strong ties with members of this college.
I identify with other members of this college.
OCB
I am always punctual.
I always follow rules very thoroughly.
I gladly help orienting new colleagues.
I help colleagues who have heavy workloads.
I inform my colleagues and supervisors early when I am unable to come to work.
Study 4
Organizational Identication
300 R. van Dick et al.
All items identical to Study 1, Sample 9.
OCB
I pay attention to information about [organization name].
I am actively searching for information about [organization name].
I inform others about new developments in [organization name].
I regularly attend meetings and seminars at [organization name].
I am in frequent contact with other members of [organization name].
Organizational identication and citizenship behaviour 301