Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour ••:••

DOI: 10.1111/jtsb.12046

Specific Organizational Citizenship Behaviours

and Organizational Effectiveness: The
Development of a Conceptual Heuristic Device

DAVID ALASTAIR LINDSAY COLDWELL AND

CHRIS WILLIAM CALLAGHAN

ABSTRACT

Organizational citizenship behaviour has generally been associated with

organizational effectiveness. However, recent research has shown that this may not
always be the case and that certain types of organizational citizenship behaviour
such as compulsory citizenship behaviour, may be inimical to the fulfillment of
formal goals and organizational effectiveness. Using military historical and business
organizational secondary data, the paper maintains that extreme variance in either
organizational (task) or personal (social psychological) support organizational
citizenship behaviour generates entropic citizenship behaviour which derails com-
pletely the effective accomplishment of formal organizational goals. A general
model of organizational citizenship behaviour with entropic citizenship behavior as
its novel conceptual boundary is developed in the paper, and four specific propo-
sitions with implications for future empirical research are delineated.

Keywords: organizational citizenship, organizational effectiveness, heuristic

INTRODUCTION

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) as a concept has retained the inter-

est of social scientists for several decades (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine &
Bachrach, 2000). Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) has generally been
associated with organizational effectiveness through the attainment of formal
organizational goals. However, recent studies have shown that this may not
always be the case and that excessive organizational citizenship behaviour of
“personal support” (Borman, 2004) and “organizational support” (Vigoda-Gadot,
2007; Sevi, 2010) types in particular may be inimical to organizational goal
attainment. Extreme personally supportive OCB may become detrimental to the

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

2 David Alastair Lindsay Coldwell and Chris William Callaghan
accomplishment of organizationally proscribed tasks through, for example,
spending large amounts of time helping coworkers in the workplace that, in the
context of superior/subordinate interpersonal relations in particular, may be
regarded as fraternization and negatively affect worker morale and productivity
(Paul & Seeberger, 2001; Sevi, 2010). On the other hand, extreme
organizationally supportive OCB may also be inimical to organizational effec-
tiveness through goal attainment. For example, disruption caused to workplace
norms and productivity (a measure of organizational effectiveness) through rate-
busting (Feldman, 1984) and burnout (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). Thus the overriding
objective of the paper is to construct a model of OCB that introduces entropic
citizenship behaviour (ECB) as a limiting feature in a conceptual boundary made
up of various levels of organizational and personal orientation that have proved
beneficial and sometimes inimical to organizational effectiveness.
The paper works initially from the platform of the behaviour of soldiers in war
situations derived from Axelrod’s (1986) seminal work, from which a conceptual
model of Entropic Citizenship Behaviour (ECB) is built. ECB is considered as
consisting of imbalanced states (defined as: “lack of balance: the state of being out
of equilibrium or out of proportion,” Merriam-Webster, 2012), where, at one
extreme, the personal goals of survival by combatant soldiers on both sides domi-
nate the formal organizational goals of the military to wage war on the enemy
with lethal force and intent (Axelrod, 1986). Or, at the other extreme, where the
military organizational goals dominate personal goals of survival among soldiers
and demand, in the most extreme form, the application of suicidal lethal force
(Forquer, 1995).
The concept of OCB has been used before in the military context to describe
the role of the ‘good soldier’ (Borman, Motowidlo, Rose & Hanser, 1983) and is
reworked in this paper in a novel conceptual model. Forquer’s (1995) analysis of
Japanese suicide pilots along with Axelrod’s (1986) formulation of cooperative
behaviour among front line trench soldiers in the First World War, are used to
produce a synthetic heuristic of effects of differential levels of personal and
organizational-oriented OCB on organizational formal goal attainment.
The paper takes the view that “conscientiousness” is the core concept in OCB
and consists of two dimensions: a personal support dimension emphasizing infor-
mal behaviour and goals and an organizational support dimension, focused on
formal behaviour and the accomplishment of formal organizational goals
(Borman, 2004). The paper suggests that extreme forms of personal or
organizational support OCB generate ECB which is inimical to the attainment of
formal organizational goals.
The military examples act as limiting cases for the analysis of organizational
ineffectiveness. On the one hand it is maintained that organizational supportive ECB,
which focuses purely on the attainment of organizational goals (as evidenced, for
example, in rate-busting), can lead to burnout, home-work interface dysfunctions,
workgroup fragmentation and decline in worker productivity and morale

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness 3
(Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). On the other hand it is argued, excessive focus on personal
support and co-worker helping behaviour can lead to fraternization-type behaviour
that decreases organizational effectiveness (Sevi, 2010). The extreme ECB types
evidenced in the military examples are regarded as imbalanced states where the
attainment of formal organizational goals and organizational effectiveness are
negated. Four propositions are derived from the discussion of the heuristic of
OCB and organizational effectiveness.
The paper aims to contribute to the OCB literature firstly, by presenting a
critique of the mainstream “positive image” (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007, p. 379) of
OCB by delineating forms of personal and organizational supportive citizenship
behaviour which generate dysfunctional outcomes inimical to organizational
effectiveness. Second, the study provides a novel OCB theoretical formulation
that draws together in a conceptual model extreme (limiting) forms of
organizational and personal supportive behaviour obtained from military exam-
ples. It is proposed that the model has distinct and specific utility in coordinating
theoretically disparate aspects currently loosely subsumed under the OCB rubric
and plotting out boundary cases, with ECB as the extreme form and a limiting
case. Third, the research generates a conceptual model of OCB that introduces
ECB as an extreme limiting case of dysfunctional OCB that undermines
organizational effectiveness. Finally, the study devises four specific testable propo-
sitions in the light of the analysis and conceptual model.
To summarize, the paper aims to build a conceptual model of OCB that
introduces ECB as a limiting feature in a boundary consisting of various levels of
organizational and personal orientation in relation to organizational effectiveness.
The paper takes the following structure. First, concepts of OCB and ECB are
defined, relationships with organizational effectiveness discussed, and levels of
analysis and formal organizational goals outlined. Second, the distinction between
OCB and ECB is discussed and illustrated with specific examples from military
history. Third, the conceptual model defining the relationship between OCB,
ECB and organizational effectiveness is discussed with the use of a diagram. The
section also briefly delineates the conceptual commonality of the proposed model
with the Laffer curve formulation. Fourth, the paper presents a discussion in the
light of foregoing analyses culminating in the development of four specific testable
propositions. The paper concludes with a mechanical analogy of the interrelations
between personal and organizational oriented citizenship behavior, a brief
description of the limitations of study and recommendations for further research.
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has generally been associated with
organizational effectiveness. However, recent research (Borman, 2004;
Vigoda-Gadot, 2007; Sevi, 2010) has shown that this may not always be the case
and that certain types of organizational citizenship behaviour may be inimical to
organizational effectiveness by thwarting the fulfillment of specific formal goals.
The paper maintains, using military historical and business organizational sec-
ondary data, that variance in either organizational (task) or personal (social

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

4 David Alastair Lindsay Coldwell and Chris William Callaghan
psychological) support-type OCB disrupts the attainment of formal organizational
goals and, in extreme cases can generate Entropic Citizenship Behaviour
(ECB)and the complete derailment of formal organizational goals and thus
organizational effectiveness. A general model of OCB is developed with ECB as
its conceptual boundary and four specific propositions delineated. Recommenda-
tions for future research are briefly outlined.

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR, ORGANIZATIONAL

EFFECTIVENESS AND ENTROPIC CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR: DEFINITIONS,
LEVELS OF ANALYSIS AND FORMAL ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

In order to understand the tension between positive and negative aspects of OCB,
a consideration of the definitional history of OCB is necessary. Although OCB
emerges as a distinct area of study, it has strong conceptual overlap with other
concepts such as: extra-role behaviour (Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995),
prosocial organizational behaviour (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; George, 1990, 1991;
George & Bettenhausen, 1990; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986), and contextual per-
formance (cf. Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; Borman, White & Dorsey 1995).
The seminal definition of OCB is given by Organ (1988, p. 4) as: “individual
behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal
reward system”. More recently OCB is redefined by Organ (1977, p. 91) as,
“contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psycho-
logical context that supports task performance (or the technical/technological/
production system)”. Organ’s (1977) redefinition of OCB as a phenomenon that
spans beyond individual to group level has multiple implications for the impor-
tance of OCB in the determination of organizational effectiveness. Moreover,
Organ’s (1977) emphasis that antecedents to OCB can be better understood as
individual “dispositions related to conscientiousness” and that “any dispositions
that can be confidently and empirically tied to characteristic level of morale in the
workplace” (Organ, 1977, p. 94), recognizes that collective individual dispositions
of conscientiousness in groups can lead to improved workplace morale and
productivity. Thus the group level phenomenon of morale finds its origin in
individual conscientiousness dispositions. In fact, Organ and Ryan (1995, p. 797)
maintain that “OCB is more interesting as a group level phenomenon . . .this is
the preferred level at which to theorize. . .”
Two core aspects of Organ’s (1977) redefinition of OCB as a group-level
phenomenon dominate: the conception of ‘conscientiousness’ and the conception
of ‘morale’ and it seems reasonable to suggest that morale experienced by a group
often occurs largely from the collectivity of individual conscientious behavior and
is the core impeller of OCB. The importance of this point needs emphasizing:
OCB works effectively “inductively”, i.e. from individual conscientiousness to the

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness 5
general group morale. As we shall see later, extreme cases of individual consci-
entiousness and general group morale can have pervasive effects on
organizational effectiveness.
At the individual level of analysis, OCB is typically regarded as a multifaceted
concept incorporating altruism, compliance, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic
virtue aspects. Yet, OCB is a concept that can be conceived essentially as a
dichotomy consisting of organizational and personal support behavioural dimen-
sions (Borman, 2004).
Organ (1988) and his co-researchers identified extra-role behaviour that con-
tributed to organizational effectiveness by improving individual and work group
performance and organizational morale as the “good soldier” syndrome (Organ,
1988; Smith, Organ & Near, 1983). The concept of the “good soldier” or
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) as it became known, was considered
transferable to other organizational types such as political (Graham, 1991) and
military (Borman, Motowidlo, Rose, & Hanser, 1983).
Although the concept of OCB is defined by Organ (1988) as consisting of
conscientiousness, civic virtue, sportsmanship and courtesy, Borman (2004) devel-
oped a three dimensional model of OCB of greater parsimony. Borman (2004,
p. 239) builds a conceptual model of citizenship performance consisting of per-
sonal and organizational support and conscientious initiative dimensions. Per-
sonal support is seen as evidenced in behaviour such as teaching useful knowledge
and skills to co-workers, providing emotional support, cooperating and showing
consideration courtesy and tact in interpersonal behaviour. Organizational
support behaviour is seen as promoting, defending, showing loyalty and support-
ing the organization’s mission and objectives. Conscientious initiative is regarded
as behaviour demonstrating persistence despite difficult conditions, and taking
initiative to accomplish objectives even if these are not part of one’s formal duties-
in short, going the extra mile.
Borman’s (2004) model provides the cornerstone of the heuristic to be devel-
oped in the paper by clearly distinguishing organizational and personal support
and conscientious initiative as distinct forms of OCB. The current model is
adapted to consist of “conscientious initiative” as the core concept of OCB which
comprises personal and organizational support dimensions.
Conscientiousness is defined in the Collins English Dictionary (2009) as:
“involving or taking great care; painstaking; diligent and as: governed by or done
according to conscience”. As used in the context of the current paper, individuals
can act diligently in their duty to the organization (organizational support) and/or
behavior towards fellow workers (personal support).

Organizational Effectiveness

Sevi (2010) in a recent article indicates how the concept of OCB has been
generally regarded as a positive factor associated with organizational effectiveness

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

6 David Alastair Lindsay Coldwell and Chris William Callaghan
(Van Dyne et al, 1995; Podsakoff et al, 2000). Although Sevi (2010) does not
define the term “organizational effectiveness” clearly and seems to consider it in
terms of generalized group performance, Koys (2001) defines it specifically in
terms of profitability and customer satisfaction, similarly other specific measures
of organizational performance and effectiveness have been used by several differ-
ent authors (see Nielsen, Hrivnak & Shaw, 2009) in their investigations of its
association with OCB. For the purposes of the current paper and in view of this
multifaceted approach, organizational effectiveness is used as a blanket term that
defines it in its most generalized form and is regarded as being measured in terms
of how well an organization achieves outcomes (formal goals) it pursues.
Sevi (2010) considers the possibility that OCB may not always enhance
organizational effectiveness by constructing and testing an agent-based simulation
model. Sevi’s (2010) model considers agents’ propensity to withhold work effort in
different work group circumstances. He defines OCB in terms of helping behav-
iour, a central component of Borman’s (2004) idea of “personal support” and his
notion of work effort is clearly aligned to Borman’s (2004) sub-concept of
“organizational support” (particularly the aspect of supporting the organization’s
mission and objectives which cannot be achieved without sustained work effort
among employees), in his model of OCB.
Sevi (2010) considers three specific situations in his agent simulations, any one
of which may increase or decrease organizational effectiveness. From his simula-
tions’ findings, Sevi’s (2010) suggests situations that demonstrate OCB involving
organization (organizationally supportive behaviour) and helping behavior (per-
sonally supportive behaviour), generally enhance organizational effectiveness. But
when personally supportive behaviour is found without organizational supportive
behaviour (work effort), organizational effectiveness decreases. In the third simu-
lation, Sevi (2010) considers a situation where organizational support behaviour
(work effort) is present without personal support behavior. He finds this situation
to generate lower organizational effectiveness than in situations where both per-
sonal and organizational support behaviour are present. Of special interest here is
that Sevi’s (2010) model seems to suggest that the two main elements of OCB need
to be “balanced” if organizational effectiveness is to be enhanced. Imbalances
lead to decreases in organizational effectiveness and, as is argued in the current
paper can lead to total organizational ineffectiveness.

Entropic Citizenship Behaviour

Landsberg (1984), a physicist, presented a simple order/disorder entropy theory

based on thermodynamics and information theory which defines entropy (total
disorder) in a system as arising when the system’s capacity for disorder is ‘over-
whelmed’ by its capacity for absorbing further information. In the social context,
Bailey (1990, p. 282) in his description of social entropy theory, postulates that

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness 7
“order is not a constant value but a matter of degree. Order can vary from a low
of zero (randomness or maximum entropy) to a high of perfect predictability
(maximum departure from randomness or minimum entropy)”. Total
organizational ineffectiveness in the current paper is regarded as arising when
OCB deconstructs into ECB characterized by low orderliness and minimum
predictability in behaviour. The disorder created by extreme personal and
organizational supportive behaviour is inimical to effective organizational out-
comes and goal attainment. In the former situation, excessive supportive behavior
derails organizational effectiveness by its disorderly fragmentation and retraction
of behavior from focused performance and formal goal attainment. In the latter
situation, excessive formal organization supportive behaviour leads to the derail-
ment of formal goal attainment by disorder created by disruptive behaviour
involving the actual or attempted abandonment of such goals.
Concepts such as Organizational Misbehaviour (OMB) (Vardi & Weitz, 2003)
and organizational deviance (Heckert & Heckert, 2004) are considered outside the
focus of the current paper because they are non-conscientious type behaviour.
Given the different ways in which OCB-type concepts are defined in the
literature, a brief glossary of key terms as they are used in this paper is warranted.
CCB is defined as compulsory conscientious type behaviour consisting of
organizational support (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). ECB is defined as compulsory
and non-compulsory extreme conscientious type behaviour consisting of
organizational and person support aspects. OCB is defined as conscientious type
behaviour consisting of personal and organizational support dimensions (Borman,
2004).

Levels of Analysis

Generally speaking, the findings of OCB empirical studies (Nielsen, Hrivnak &
Shaw, 2009; Sevi, 2010) suggest there may be a balance between personal and
organizational goals in which too much accentuation on either aspect may reduce
organizational effectiveness. From the theoretical point of view, if this is the case,
one might expect that increasing amounts of either personally or organizationally
oriented OCB will result in decreases in organizational effectiveness. The limiting
cases offered by the empirical data obtained from military history suggest that this
may indeed be the case and that high levels of either personal or organizational
behaviour lead to ECB that is both unstable and unpredictable and severely
undermines the attainment of formal organizational goals, when it becomes a
group level phenomenon. It follows that the more ECB becomes a group level
phenomenon, the greater threat it is to the achievement of organizational goals
and their effectiveness. However, there is little doubt that both individual and
group OCB can affect the achievement of formal organizational goals. Nielsen,
Hrivnak and Shaw (2009) point out in their meta-analysis that only around three

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

8 David Alastair Lindsay Coldwell and Chris William Callaghan
percent of the 400- odd studies of the OCB –performance relationship conducted
since 1983 have considered OCB as a group level phenomenon.

Formal Organizational Goals

Although strong commitment to organizational goals obviously can help achieve

goals more efficiently, the basic novelty of the OCB concept is to suggest that such
goal attainment is enhanced when a degree of balance exists between personal
and organizational oriented behaviour.
As regards formal goals themselves, it matters little whether there is lack of full
consensus in the group regarding such goals nor whether they, individually or
collectively, actively promote them, the fact remains that what the organization
strives for and the formal expectations of behaviour that are derived from this, are
generally clearly understood. For example, the goal of the armed forces during war
is to defeat the enemy and the expectation is that combat soldiers will earnestly
promote that goal by fighting and, if need be, eliminating the enemy. In business
organizations the formal goal is, arguably, profit maximization (even satisficing
demands a minimum level of profit accumulation) and employees are expected to
work and perform duties that aid the organization in the attainment of this goal.
According to OCB theory, the efficacy in attaining such organizational goals is
affected by the conscientiousness and the personal and organizational supportive
behaviour shown. Since OCB suggests citizenship behaviour in the organizational
context can aid the organization in attaining its formal goals—the specific
personal/organizational orientation of the individual in his/her allotted role is
something that needs propagation and encouragement. However, as we have seen
in the earlier literature review, this may not always be the case. Difficulties in finding
specific empirical examples of how different levels of individual emphases on
personal or organizational aspects of OCB lead to organizational ineffectiveness
have led to the use of computer simulations (Sevi, 2010) and in the current paper,
extreme examples from military history. Nonetheless it is the authors’ conviction
that the construction of an OCB heuristic can be of functional use to management
scientists in much the same way as the Laffer curve (Wanniski, 1978) is to political
scientists and economists. This aspect will be dealt with in more detail later in the
paper, suffice it to say here that the model proposed adopts the same inverted
u-shaped conceptual structure whose limits define complete ineffectiveness (tax
revenue/organizational formal goal attainment). The development of these limits
in the ECB concept is derived from secondary data obtained from military history
discussed in detail in the following section.

ENTROPIC CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: EXAMPLES FROM MILITARY HISTORY

Axelrod’s (1986) insight into cooperative behaviour among front line trench
soldiers in the First World War indicates that the military’s formal organizational

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness 9
goals of applying lethal force in Warfare involving both killing and the prospect of
being killed, could be fully undermined by the interpersonal supportive behaviors
of “live and let live” adopted by soldiers on both sides. While the prisoners’
dilemma framework and Axelrod’s (1986) derivation of this in his explanation of
the live and let live phenomenon considers the formation of informal personal
supportiveness among soldiers, and Shy (1996) has considered the militia at
national level using the same game heuristic, there has been no specific analysis of
personal and/organizational support (Borman, Motowidlo, Rose & Hanser,
1983). Table 1 below, considers the logical possibilities of balance/imbalance in
personal and organizational supportive behavior and their association with OCB
and ECB, in a two by two table using a combination of Axelrod’s (1986) and Shy’s
(1996) conceptual heuristic. The table provides the basic analysis and explanation
of the distinction between ECB and OCB.
The terms’ defect’ and ‘cooperate’ are obtained from the original model and
are included here for completeness, although in the context they are used here, i.e.
with two warring sides pitted against each other, they maintain some of their
original meaning. Very briefly, in the original model of the Prisoner’s Dilemma
game from which Axelrod’s (1986) model was derived, the case of two individuals
that face a choice of cooperation versus defection is described. The greater payoff
to the individual is defection, no matter what choice is made by the other.
However, if both individuals defect, the consequences are heavier than if both
cooperate. To defect is therefore a stable strategy if the game is played on a
once-off basis. Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) found the highest score in comput-
erized simulations of the Prisoner’s Dilemma in its iterative form to be associated
with a ‘tit for tat’ strategy. Thus defection is met with defection and cooperation
with cooperation. Table 1, however, refers to situations specifically regarding
OCB. Thus, although the underlying causal mechanism explaining for example,

Table 1. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and Entropic Citizenship Behaviour: The

military example (adapted from Axelrod & Keohane, 1985)
Defect
War:Kill
Defect Quadrant A: Kill/Kill
War:Kill Imbalanced state of Extreme
organizational support
behaviour: Entropic Citizenship
Behaviour
Cooperate Quadrant D: Survive/Kill
Peace: Balanced state of personal and
Survive organizational support
behaviour: Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour
Cooperate
Peace: Survive
Quadrant B: Kill/Survive
Balanced state of organizational
and personal support behaviour:
Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour
Quadrant C: Survive/Survive
Imbalanced state of extreme
personal support behaviour:
Entropic Citizenship Behaviour

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

10 David Alastair Lindsay Coldwell and Chris William Callaghan
the pacifism among frontline soldiers in the First World War might best be
articulated in the relative payoffs of defection and cooperation in terms of per-
sonal survival, the analysis confines itself to an articulation of the concepts of OCB
and ECB as defined in the current paper. Personal supportive behaviour is
interpreted as conscientious behavior aimed at providing fellow soldiers with the
knowledge and skills needed for survival. If both sides cooperate peace prevails
(the situation documented by Axelrod (1986) in his example of First World War
soldiers’ pacifistic behaviors). Organizational supportive behaviour is regarded as
describing situations where soldiers exert lethal force. If exerting lethal force is
carried out conscientiously to an extreme, survival becomes a secondary or
non-existent factor among combatants (Forquer, 1995). A brief explanation of the
various quadrants is now required.
Quadrant A refers to an ECB disequilibrium state where organizational effec-
tiveness is likely to be severely undermined or entirely negated. Here support for
the military goal of winning the war is taken to a level where the possibility of
personal supportive behavior is negated entirely. In its most extreme form this is
seen in suicide missions and behaviour by soldiers. A good example of this is
presented by Forquer (1995) in his description of Japanese Kamikaze pilots in the
Second World War. Interestingly, Forquer (1995, p. 1) suggests in his analysis
that: “The WWII Kamikazes have been revered as the epitome of military
discipline and soldierly repute. The Kamikaze story also has a dark side. An
analysis of the leadership behind the development and continued employment of
the Kamikaze tactics reveals the calculated choice to sacrifice the flyer’s lives for
a ‘glorious death’ not possible victory” (emphasis added). Thus the negation of
personal support and helping behavior to military comrades brought about by the
suicide of Japan’s most experienced pilots early in the implementation of the
Kamikaze, strategy, cut off the slightest prospect of future victory. Moreover, the
decimation of a significant proportion of Japan’s young human capital, through
the overriding concern for winning the war through suicidal missions intended to
give Japan a breathing space to rebuild her shattered forces, meant that her
recovery after the war was considerably delayed (Forquer, 1995) .
The concept of Compulsory Citizenship Behavior (CCB) has specific relevance
in this context Vigoda-Gadot (2006, p. 78) describes CCB as: “. . . . behavior that,
in contrast with conventional OCB, is not based on the genuine, spontaneous
“good will” of the individual. Instead, it emerges in response to external pressures
by significant and powerful others in the workplace (i.e., managersor co-workers)
who wish to increase the employees’ work load by involving them in duties that
are beyond the scope of their job description (Porpora, 1989)”.
In this regard, albeit describing a much more extreme instance than found in
the business organizations investigated by Vigoda-Gadot (2006), Forquer (1995)
points out that, when the initial cohort of experienced Japanese pilots had met
their deaths on suicide missions, “volunteers,” many of whom were forcibly
enlisted against their will, were sent on Kamikaze missions. The degree of reluc-

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness 11
tance among these pilots is graphically recorded from instances where the aircraft
canopies of suicide mission pilots were deliberately bolted down so that pilots were
incapable of escaping from their aircraft during their one-way flights to oblivion.
This extreme reluctance of pilots to commit suicide and the action taken by the
authorities to counteract this by locking of pilots in their aircraft, emphasizes the
degree of disorderliness and unpredictability of later Kamikaze pilot’s behavior
and the high command’s attempt to overcome this. Ultimately the Kamikaze
strategy by the Japanese military was a failure not only because of the counter-
measures taken by the allies to reduce its impact, the destruction of Japanese
aircraft and the fact that only around 3% of Kamikaze aircraft actually hit allied
warships, but because it was no longer seen by the Japanese high command as
being effective. Also, the Japanese population at large began to resent the futility
of it all and to opt out of the system advocating it altogether.
Quadrants B and D can be taken together as they describe “normal war” from
the perspective of the two antagonists. In Quadrant B, antagonist/side B’s sol-
diers’ perspective is to exert lethal force (Kill) while attempting to survive. Here
there is a balance in the soldier’s OCB that allows organizational and personal
supportive behaviour that enhances the effectiveness of the organization (the
military) in its mission to win the war. The difference between side B and side A
approaches to waging war are relatively subtle and interchangeable. Side B
/Quadrant B soldiers might be regarded as the initial aggressors (such as the Nazi
German military machine in the Second World War in its invasion of Poland)
where taking aggressive lethal action is dominant over survival. On the other
hand, a country defending itself against an aggressor, considers survival initially
(Quadrant D, Survive/Kill) such as Britain during the Dunkirk evacuation of the
Second World War. Of course, the emphasis during “normal war” ’ activity
could change as a war progressed. For example, Britain and the USA became
aggressors during the Normandy landings of the Second World War and Nazi
Germany the defender. Also, although acts of CCB (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006) were
undoubtedly perpetrated by individual commanders, such as General Haig
during the Somme offensive, ‘normal war’ precluded person-centered pacifism
on the one hand and organization-centered suicide on the other among soldiers.
The ECB state (quadrant C) describes closely Axelrod’s (1986) description of First
World War behavior where both sides’ combatants in the trench war overriding
concern was survival while playing at waging war without earnest lethal intent.
The cooperation between soldiers for peace was driven by their personal goal of
survival. However, this was a temporary state of imbalance that ultimately
attracted the intervention of the British high command (as briefly described
below) to restore equilibrium of “normal war” activity. Had the situation of
pacifistic cooperation endured it would have derailed the effectiveness of the
military organization in its quest for victory. As an antidote to this frontline
pacifism the British high command initiated trench raids. Axelrod (1986)
points out that initially raids were not used as a deliberate antidote to pacifistic

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

12 David Alastair Lindsay Coldwell and Chris William Callaghan
cooperation with the enemy, but as a demonstration of solidarity by the British
High Command with their French allies. Nonetheless, the raid became a suc-
cessful instrument for ensuring aggressive action in front line soldiers. One cel-
ebrated example of this type of raid was performed by Captain A.C. Frame of the
Glasgow Highlanders at Mad Point ridge in 1916 (for which he later received the
Distinguished Service Order) which was considered by Field Marshal Haig as
one of the most successful raids of the First World War (Oatts,1961). Although
speculative, it is possible that given the hesitancy of the British High command in
launching the Somme offensive, it was this particular raid and the fact that
occurred on 27 June 1916 that lit the litmus paper that commenced that disas-
trous campaign a few days later. Of particular importance here is that it was only
with the introduction of the trench raid that the behaviour of front line soldiers
once again became orderly and predictable to the military authorities. In the
state of ECB brought on by the pacifistic consensus between the ‘warring’ soldiers
there was no order or predictability in what the soldiers were commanded to do
would be done in earnest. Thus the formal goals of the military were under-
mined. Also, within front line itself and despite the unwritten agreement between
soldiers that they would not inflict lethal force, there was a strong undercurrent
of unpredictability of what the enemy might do next and whether the pact would
be maintained. This lack of order and predictability constitutes an essential
element of the ECB concept.

ENTROPIC CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR IN BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS

The above military analysis provides limiting case examples of the conceptual
model to be built in this section from collective instances that are unlikely to be
experienced in form by non-military organizations. In substance isolated individ-
ual examples of ECB do exist in business organizations. For example, Kohler
CEO of Ricola effectively ‘fell on his sword’ to eliminate personal dishonour and
limit damage to the company’s reputation when he confessed to fraud. Although
the motive for his suicide is unclear, the statement from the company at the time
of his death which read: “However, it is important to us to remember that his
commitment and hard work throughout all the years that he worked for Ricola
brought outstanding credit to the company. He led the company successfully with
the greatest care and diligence” (Allen, 2011, Second section, para. 3), suggests
that this instance might be regarded as ECB resulting from extreme business
organizational supportive behaviour.
On the other hand, voluntary pay cuts by CEOs (see, for example, the recent
action by Ornstein CEO of Mesa Air Group, 2009) can be regarded as an
extreme form of personal (helping others) support behaviour. Such extreme
ECB actions may result in reductions in the effectiveness of the organizations
concerned.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness 13
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR, ENTROPIC CITIZENSHIP
BEHAVIOUR AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL

As mentioned earlier, the basic heuristic being proposed for OCB, ECB and
organizational effectiveness roughly corresponds to the Laffer curve heuristic in
both substance and form.
The Laffer curve proposes that at tax rates of 0% and 100% government
collects zero tax revenue. At zero taxation there will be no tax revenue and at
100% tax no one would be willing to work. In the former situation no government
would exist and anarchy would prevail. In the latter situation there would be no
money economy but a barter exchange process in place (Wanniski, 1978).
The Laffer curve has been criticized (Malcomson, 1986; Gahvari, 1989;
Fullerton, 2008) for being an oversimplification. However, recently it has been
revisited as a potentially useful heuristic for indicating optimum taxation protocols
in the US and Europe (Trabandt & Uhlig, 2009).
The heuristic illustrated in Figure 1 follows the basic logic of the Laffer curve as
described above. The OCB, ECB organizational effectiveness heuristic proposes
that at very high levels of personally oriented citizenship behaviour and very low
levels of organizationally oriented citizenship behaviour (we cannot strictly speak
of 100 percent personally oriented citizenship behaviour or 0 percent
organizationally oriented citizenship behaviour, because human behaviour in
organizations will always consist of some degree of both, however small), a

Increasing
High organizational Increasing personal support
support/decreasing /decreasing organizational support
personal support OCB OCB
Organizational
OCB AREA A

Effectiveness/

Attainment of B

Formal goals
ECB1 ECB2
AREA AREA

C
Low

Very Low personal Very High personal

support/ support/
Very High organizational Very Low organizational
support behaviour support behaviour

Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of OCB, ECB and organizational

effectiveness

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

14 David Alastair Lindsay Coldwell and Chris William Callaghan
situation of ECB will emerge characterized by unpredictable, disorderly behav-
iour. On the one hand, ‘anarchy,’ as in the case of extreme personally oriented
citizenship behaviour of pacifistic frontline soldiers. On the other ‘barter,’ as in the
case of extreme organizationally oriented citizenship behaviour of later Kamikaze
pilots and the Japanese people as a whole who tried to opt out of the repressive
military system altogether. Barter is taken to mean in this context essentially the
abandonment of a repressive system, which in the case of the economy meant the
abandonment of the monetary economic system. In the case of the military, it
refers to the abandonment of the forced suicide missions required by the military
authorities and the adoption of overtures for peace Figure 1 also suggests, like the
Laffer curve, that two points on the curve generate the same outcome. For
example, at point A in Figure 1 in the OCB zone a differential balance between
personal and organizational citizenship behaviour occurs at two points on the
curve and leads to the same formal goal attainment. This suggests that more
personal or organizational supportive behaviour may suit different types of
organization. Organizational size, structure, culture and function may indicate
where a specific balance in organizational and personal oriented behaviour may
lie. For example, a structured hierarchical organization may benefit more from a
greater level of personal supportive behaviour in the attainment of organizational
goals (e.g. Ehrhart, Bliese & Thomas’s, 2006 study of military units ), while a
matrix type structure may benefit more from OCB that is more organizationally
supportive. This aspect needs to be established through further empirical
research, but it seems reasonable to propose that different organizational types
will require different mixes of OCB to optimize organizational effectiveness.
Similarly the ECB zones displayed in Figure 1 at point C indicate that very high
levels of personal support/very low levels of organizational support and vice versa,
generate the same low levels of formal goal attainment/organizational effective-
ness. Finally, point B in Figure 1 indicates suboptimal levels of personal or organi-
zation supportive behaviour which lead to middling levels of organizational
effectiveness.
Figure 1 adopts the inverted u-shaped curve to describe relationships between
OCB, ECB and organizational effectiveness. The diagram suggests that the more
the balanced state transposes into a unbalanced state where personally supportive
or organizationally supportive conscientious behaviour becomes increasingly
dominant, the more closely it approaches the limiting situation of ECB and the
greater the decrease in organizational effectiveness. The extreme (limiting) cases
of ECB1 and ECB2 have been described in terms of historical accounts of
particular situations in the First and Second World Wars. These cases are clearly
eclectic but nevertheless help to clarify the meaning of ECB1 and ECB2 concepts
described respectively in instances of suicide and pacifism among combatants in
war situations. These are limiting conceptual cases which are unlikely to be found
in non-military organizations. Nonetheless it is maintained that the model has,
resonance with organizations operating in much less intense contexts (e.g. busi-

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness 15
ness organizations or military organizations during peacetime). Two less extreme
aspects of the model that approach entropy without necessarily reaching it and
have specific application in business organizations’ effectiveness, are the phenom-
ena of rate busting (organizational; supportive behaviour) on the one hand and
fraternization (personally supportive behaviour) on the other hand. These con-
cepts are further discussed in the following section.

DISCUSSION AND DEVELOPMENT OF TESTABLE PROPOSITIONS

The OCB business organization literature seems to support the view that OCB is
most strongly associated with organizational effectiveness in its composite (bal-
anced) form rather than in its more personally or organizationally supportive
dimensions. For example, Nielsen, Hrivnak and Shaw’s (2009) meta-analytic
review found a positive and significant relationship between group level OCB
(p = 0.29, where p is the calculated true correlation) and organizational perfor-
mance. Altruism was found to have the strongest relationship (p = 0.34) and
helping behaviour the weakest (p = 0.19) and civic virtue the second weakest
(p = 0.26) with organizational performance. Moreover, conscientiousness, a close
cousin to altruism, was found to have the second strongest relationship with
organizational performance (p = 0.32), thus endorsing their core position in the
model proposed in the current paper. Tentatively these findings support the view
that both personal aspects (e.g. helping behaviour) and organizational factors
(e.g. civic virtue) have separate but reduced strength of association with
organizationally effective OCB (i.e. OCB that enhances organizational perfor-
mance). The individual (altruism) and group effects (morale) of OCB on
organizational effectiveness emerge clearly from this meta-analysis. Nielsen et al’s
(2009) analysis suggested that individual OCB aggregated to the group level
showed a weaker relationship with group performance than when OCB is meas-
ured at the group level, using the group as the performance referent. However, it
seems reasonable to assume that isolated individual examples of OCB are less
likely to have an influence on organizational effectiveness than group OCB, and
to some extent this is borne out in Nielsen et al’s (2009) meta-analytic review, as
is their group level finding effect on group performance. The latter suggests that
multiple groups that constitute an organization’s workforce and collectively
embrace OCB are likely, in aggregate, to enhance organizational performance as
a whole. Vigoda-Gadot’s (2006) concept of CCB is clearly an example of “forced”
organizationally supportive OCB and although perhaps initially successful in
pursuing organizational goals, such compulsory or coercive citizenship behaviour
is likely to generate the kind of imbalance emphasized in the heuristic that leads
to ECB. This can be manifested in such individual and group behaviour inimical
to organizational effectiveness, such as: stress, burnout and negative work family
spillovers (Dilworth, 2004; Leger-Hornby & Bleed, 2006).

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

16 David Alastair Lindsay Coldwell and Chris William Callaghan
Vigoda-Gadot (2007) confirmed the negative outcomes of CCB. Using a sample
of 286 teachers from 13 schools in Israel, Vigoda-Gadot (2007) found CCB to be
associated with, inter alia: higher levels of job stress, burnout, and propensity to
leave, and lower levels of job satisfaction, innovation and work performance.
Sevi’s (2010) simulated OCB analysis also lends supportive evidence to the view
expressed in the current model that while balanced OCB enhances organizational
effectiveness, neither personal nor organizational supportive behaviour will be
separately effective and may decrease rather than enhance organizational effec-
tiveness. Of particular interest here is that in the case of conscientious personal
supportive organizational behaviour without a commensurate commitment to
organizational goals through work effort, was found by Sevi (2010) to be associ-
ated with a decrease in group performance.
As mentioned earlier, rate-busting and fraternization can be states of
organizationally and personally supportive behaviour that enter early phases of
disequilibrium and if widespread enough in an organization, could have substan-
tial effects on organizational effectiveness. There exists voluminous literature on
both these aspects and it is not the intention, nor is there a need, to survey this
body of literature here. However, very briefly, Heckert and Heckert (2004)
suggest that rate-busting activity is negatively appraised over-conformity to
organizational norms through organizationally supportive behaviour. This can be
and often is severely disruptive on workplace productivity, depending on its
degree of diffusion in the workplace. Feldman (1984, p. 48) puts the matter
clearly: “The norms about productivity that frequently develop among piece rate
workers are illustrative here. By observing a series of incidents (a person produces
50 widgets and is praised; a person produces 60 widgets and receives sharp
teasing; a person produces 70 widgets and is ostracized, group members learn the
limits of the group’s patience: ‘This far, and no further.’ ”
Fraternization as a negative concept must be distinguished from its positive
aspects as expressed in the French revolutionary slogan: Liberté, Égalité,
Fraternité (Wildt, 1999). Fraternization with the enemy is an example of the
concept that can be regarded as an illicit type of “brotherhood” that breaks
accepted normative boundaries in the context of war. However, less extreme
forms of fraternization (personally supportive organizational behaviour) which
can undermine its effectiveness are evident in the business context. For example,
Wilson, Filosa and Fennel (2003, p. 78) indicate that worker fraternization
decreased the productivity of the employees involved. Paul and Seeberger (2001)
refer to fraternization-type activities external to the organization in which subor-
dinates interact with superiors and often result in declining productivity. Thus too
much personally supportive behaviour in an organizational setting is detrimental
to organizational effectiveness.
Counterproductive forms of workplace fraternization are also suggested by
Vigoda-Gadot (2007) who points out that since managers are the definers of
voluntary and required behaviour in the work situation they “. . . sometimes

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness 17
extend the definition of formal duties into the informal area of goodwill. . . .” (op
cit: 382); thus effectively blurring the boundaries between these two aspects.
From the earlier development of a conceptual model in the paper and
the foregoing discussion four overriding empirically testable propositions are
generated.
Proposition 1: Balanced OCB states involving both personal and organizational supportive
behaviour are positively associated with organizational effectiveness. This proposition is derived
from mainstream OCB literature
Proposition 2: Imbalanced OCB states dominated by either personal or organizational support-
ive behaviour are associated with decreasing organizational effectiveness. This proposition is
derived from extant empirical work specifically relating to its organizational and personal
support dimensions of OCB.

Proposition 3: Extreme imbalance ECB states consisting of mostly of personal or organizational

supportive behaviour are associated with increasing and ultimately, total organizational inef-
fectiveness. This proposition is derived from empirically-based critical discussion and analysis
which culminates in the proposed model
Proposition 4: Specific personal and organizational OCB behaviour balances for optimum
organizational effectiveness will differ in terms of particular organizational attributes (e.g. size,
structure and culture). This proposition is deduced from the model and intended for further
empirical analysis.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Organizationally dysfunctional elements of OCB have been noted by

Vigoda-Gadot (2006) in the development of his concept of CCB and by Sevi
(2010) in his agent-based simulation model. The paper attempts to continue with
this important trajectory of research by building a limiting case conceptual model
of OCB that ranges from beneficial (organizationally effective) balanced OCB
that consists of both organizational and personal oriented behaviour in approxi-
mately equal amounts to increasing more pronounced forms of one or other type
of this dichotomy. The heuristic developed suggests that extreme forms of either
personal or organizational supportive behaviour will lead to ECB and total
organizational ineffectiveness. The model also suggests that as OCB moves away
from the balanced form towards successively greater levels of imbalance,
organizational effectiveness decreases. Thus, speculatively and in need of primary
empirical analysis, management interventions to curtail the movement of organi-
zations towards a total ineffectiveness state in terms of the attainment of
organizational goals are suggested from the forgoing analysis. Thus, for example,
as a means of curtailing excessively personal supportive OCB behaviour as evi-
denced in soldiers’ pacifism in the First World War, matrix-type structures (a
temporary team approach consisting of a project leader to put together a team to
perform a specific immediate and finite task) such as those generated by the trench

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

18 David Alastair Lindsay Coldwell and Chris William Callaghan
raid, for the accomplishment of specific projects can be implemented. In the case
of extreme forms of organizational support as described in the instance of Kami-
kaze suicidal activity, preemptive managerial interventions could take the form of
participative management and employee empowerment.
As a rough analogy and as a means of clarifying the model described in Figure 1
further, the influence of personal and organizational OCB plotted in Figure 1 can
be considered as an instrument to point out various zones (OCB mixes) that are
likely to lead to organizational effectiveness, in much the same way as a tachom-
eter indicates the effective functioning of a motor vehicle engine.
At very low revolutions per minute (rpm), or when the engine idles poorly and
irregularly, the engine dies and the vehicle fails to proceed. This can be regarded as
analogous to the personally supportive extreme of ECB. The motor is unable to
propel the vehicle, the primary task (objective) of an engine. At sustained very high
RPMs where the engine is performing beyond its optimum capacity, power output
begins to decline and it becomes increasing prone to seizure. This can be regarded
as analogous to the organizationally supportive extreme of ECB where burnout
becomes increasingly imminent. The engine produces its most effective output in
propelling the vehicle at an RPM that lies somewhere between these two extremes.
As RPM declines or increases beyond optimum levels it becomes increasingly
inefficient and thus ineffective, in propelling the vehicle along its chosen path.
Limitations of the study include: a dependence on eclectic secondary data for
descriptions of limiting cases described; the fact that OCB concept itself is con-
ceptually weak because of its overlap with other closely allied concepts and, as
maintained by certain authors (Bridges, 1994; Jex & Britt, 2008); the difficulty in
empirically testing a model that postulates extreme forms of personal or
organizationally supportive behaviour. And, the fact that organizational effective-
ness is itself a multifaceted and complex phenomenon with limited generalizability
because of its organizationally specific attributes and the constant dynamic of
organizational change (Steers, 1975; Angle & Perry, 1981).
Recommendations for further research include a broader interrogation of the
proposed OCB/ECB heuristic device articulated in the four stated propositions.
In particular, investigations into the effects on formal goal attainment and
organizational effectiveness of various ‘balanced’ and ‘imbalanced’ OCB combi-
nations (including ECB extremes) in organizations with specific physical and
cultural attributes, are strongly advocated.

Prof. David Alastair Lindsay Coldwell

Economic and Business Sciences
University of the Witwatersrand
Private Bag 3 Wits 2050
Johannesburg 2050
South Africa
david.coldwell@wits.ac.za

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness 19
Mr. Chris William Callaghan
University of the Witwatersrand
Johannesburg
South Africa
chris.callaghan@wits.ac.za

REFERENCES

Allen, M. (2011). Ricola boss confessed fraud before suicide. Retrieved August 1, 2012, from
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/2011.
Angle, H., & Perry, J. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and
organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, (26), 1–14.
Axelrod, R. (1986). An evolutionary approach to norms. The American Political Science Review,
80(4), 1095–1111.
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. (1981). The evolution of co-operation. Science, 211(4489),
1390–1396.
Axelrod, R., & Keohane, R. (1985). Achieving cooperation under anarchy: Strategies and
institutions. World Politics, 38, 226–254.
Bailey, K. (1990). Social entropy theory. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Borman, W. (2004). The concept of organizational citizenship. Current Reflections in Psycho-
logical Science, 13, 238–241.
Borman, W., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman & Associates (Eds.), Personnel
selection in organization, (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W., & Motowidlo, S. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The
meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109.
Borman, W., Motowidlo, S., Rose, S., & Hanser, L. M. (1983). Development of a model of soldier
effectiveness (Institute Report No.95). Minneapolis: Personnel Decisions Research Institute.
Borman, W., White, L., & Dorsey, D. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and
interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 168–177.
Bridges, W. (1994). Job shift: How to prosper in a workplace without jobs. Reading: Addison-
Wesley.
Brief, A., & Motowidlo, S. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 11, 710–725.
Collins English dictionary-complete and unabridged. (2009). New York: Harper Collins.
Dilworth, J. (2004). Predictors of negative spillover from family to work. Journal of Family
Issues, 25, 241–261.
Ehrhart, M. G., Bliese, P. D., & Thomas, J. L. (2006). Unit-level OCB and unit effectiveness:
Examining the incremental effect of helping behavior. Human Performance, 19,159–173.
Feldman, D. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 47–53.
Forquer, J. (1995). The Kamikaze: A new appraisal. Retrieved August 1, 2012, from
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/FJA.htm.
Fullerton, D. (2008). Laffer curve. In S. N. Durlauf, & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave
Dictionary of Economics, (p. 839). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gahvari, F. (1989). The nature of government expenditures and the shape of the Laffer
curve. Journal of Public Economics, 40, 251.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

20 David Alastair Lindsay Coldwell and Chris William Callaghan
George, J. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75, 107–116.
George, J. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behavior at work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299–307.
George, J., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales perfor-
mance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 698–709.
Graham, J. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 4, 249–270.
Heckert, A., & Heckert, D. (2004). Using an integrated typology of deviance to analyse ten
common norms of the US middle class. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 209–228.
Jex, S., & Britt, T. (2008). A scientist– practitioner approach. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behav-
ior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 54, 101–114.
Landsberg, P. (1984). Is equilibrium always an entropy maximum? Journal of Statistical
Physics, 35, 159–169.
Leger-Hornby, T., & Bleed, R. (2006). Work and life: Achieving a reasonable balance. Retrieved
August 1, 2012, from www.educause.edu/cultivatingcareers.
Malcomson, J. (1986). Some analytics of the Laffer curve. Journal of Public Economics, 29,
263.
Merriam-Webster (2012). Online Dictionary. Retrieved June 24, 2012, from http://www
.merriam-webster.com/dictionary.
Nielsen, T., Hrivnak, G., & Shaw, M. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior
and performance: A meta-analysis of group-level research. Small Group Research, 40,
555–577.
Oatts, L. (1961). Proud heritage: The story of the Highland Light Infantry, 1952–1959. London:
Nelson.
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attach-
ment: The effects of compliance, identification and internalization on pro-social behav-
ior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.
Organ, D. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-
performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2, 46–53.
Organ, D. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington:
Lexington Books.
Organ, D., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.
Ornstein, J. (2009). CEO Mesa Air Group. Retrieved August 1, 2012, from http://
www.jonathanornstein.com/.
Paul, P. R., & Seeberger, K. A. (2001). Managing reindeer games: Coping with the dilemmas
of superior-subordinate fraternization outside the workplace. Review of Business, 22, 9–14.
Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Paine, J., & Bachrach, D. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for
future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
Porpora, D. V. (1989). Four concepts of social structure. Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour, 19, 195–211.
Sevi, E. (2010). Effects of organizational citizenship behaviour on group performance:
Results from an agent-based simulation model. Journal of Modeling in Management, 5,
25–37.
Shy, O. (1996). Industrial organization: Theory and application. Cambridge, Mass: the MIT
Press.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness 21
Smith, C., Organ, D., & Near, J. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.
Steers, R. (1975). Problems in the measurement of organizational effectiveness. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 20, 546–558.
Trabandt, M., & Uhlig, H. (2009). How far are we from the slippery slope? The Laffer curve revisited.
NBER Working Papers 15343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L., & Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. Cummings & B.
Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, (pp. 215–285). Greenwich: JAI
Press.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2003). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of
the good soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 36,
77–93.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination
of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21,
377–405.
Wanniski, J. (1978). Taxes, revenues and the ‘Laffer Curve’. Retrieved August 23, 2012, from
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080528_197805001taxesrevenuesandthe
laffercurvejudewanniski.pdf.
Wildt, A. (1999). Solidarity: its history and contemporary definition. In K. Bayertz (Ed.),
Solidarity, (pp. 171–181). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wilson R., Filosa, C., & Fennel, A. (2003). Romantic relationship at work: Does privacy
trump the dating police? Defense Counsel Journal, 70, 78–88.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd